Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective surgical treatment for medial compartment arthritis of the knee, yet surgical outcomes are directly related to surgical execution. Robotic arm-assisted surgery aims to address these difficulties by allowing for detailed preoperative planning, real-time intraoperative assessment and haptic-controlled bone removal. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between conventional manual mobile bearing and robot arm-assisted fixed bearing medial UKA in our local population.
Materials and methods
This is a retrospective case–control study of 148 UKAs performed at an academic institution with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. 74 robotic arm-assisted UKAs were matched to 74 conventional UKAs via propensity score matching. Radiological outcomes included postoperative mechanical axis and individual component alignment. Clinical parameters included a range of motion, Knee Society knee score and functional assessment taken before, 6 and 12 months after the operation.
Results
Robot arm-assisted UKA produced a more neutral component coronal alignment in both femoral component (robotic -0.2 ± 2.8, manual 2.6 ± 2.3; P = 0.043) and tibial component (robotic -0.3 ± 4.0, manual 1.7 ± 5.3; P < 0.001). While the postoperative mechanical axis was comparable, robot arm-assisted UKA demonstrated a smaller posterior tibial slope (robotic 5.7 ± 2.7, manual 8.2 ± 3.3; P = 0.02). Clinical outcomes did not show any statistically significant differences.
Conclusion
Compared with conventional UKA, robotic arm-assisted UKA demonstrated improved component alignment and comparable clinical outcomes. Improved radiological accuracy with robotic-arm assistance demonstrated promising early results.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference33 articles.
1. Data and statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Accessed 28 Jul 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/index.htm.
2. Lementowski PW, Zelicof SB. Obesity and osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008;37:148–51 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18438470/).
3. S K, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(4):780–5. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.
4. Michele Vasso, Chiara Del Regno, Carlo Perisano, Antonio D'Amelio, Katia Corona, Alfredo Schiavone Pann. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results; PMID: 26130277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2809-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26130277/.
5. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA. Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(Suppl 2):108–15.