nach oben

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Erschienen in:

26.03.2019 | Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY

Outcomes of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up

verfasst von: Konstantinos Dretakis, Vasilios G. Igoumenou

Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine implant survivorship, complications, and re-operation rates, after robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) at intermediate follow-up. Patient satisfaction and clinical outcome were further investigated, in addition to an analysis of restoration of knee alignment. Fifty-one patients, who received a robotic arm-assisted medial UKA, were prospectively studied, and followed for a minimum of 3 years (mean 51.4 ± 4.5 months). Survival of implants, complications, reoperations, and patients’ overall satisfaction were evaluated. WOMAC scores, as well as knee flexion, varus deformity and flexion contracture were further analyzed, before and after surgery. No implant failure or implant-related complication was recorded, and no revision surgery was performed at the last follow-up in any patient. Overall satisfaction was excellent; 96.1% of patients, at the latest follow-up, was satisfied or very satisfied, while none was dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Total WOMAC score and each score’s component was significantly improved after surgery. Knee alignment was significantly improved, as flexion increased, varus decreased, and flexion contracture also decreased. In conclusion, robotic-arm-assisted UKA, through accurate implant positioning, significantly improves range of motion and coronal plane alignment, in appropriately selected patients. Excellent overall satisfaction rates and clinical outcomes can be expected, at intermediate follow-up, along with excellent survival of implants and minimal to none surgery-related morbidity.

Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18CrossRefPubMed

Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB (2018) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 33(7):1994–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.050 CrossRefPubMed

Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41(11):2265–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3633-9 CrossRefPubMed

Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW (2017) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 24(2):419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fisher DA, Dalury DF, Adams MJ, Shipps MR, Davis K (2010) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in the over 70 population. Orthopedics 33(9):668. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20100722-05 CrossRefPubMed

Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(2):332–338. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.01467 CrossRefPubMed

Schwab PE, Lavand’homme P, Yombi JC, Thienpont E (2015) Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(12):3494–3500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3188-x CrossRefPubMed

Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B (2017) Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 6(11):631–639. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2014) Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 85(4):342–347. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.920990 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):44–48. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16266 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Khamaisy S, Gladnick BP, Nam D, Reinhardt KR, Heyse TJ, Pearle AD (2015) Lower limb alignment control: is it more challenging in lateral compared to medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty? Knee 22(4):347–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.02.018 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Nam D, Khamaisy S, Gladnick BP, Paul S, Pearle AD (2013) Is tibiofemoral subluxation correctable in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 28(9):1575–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.001 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S, Smith BP, Lang JE, Poehling GG, Conditt MA, Jinnah RH (2013) Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013:837167. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/837167 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M (2016) Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(8):627–635. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00664 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M, Dunbar NJ, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA, Pearle AD (2013) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee 20(4):268–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA (2012) Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(5):803–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.021 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA (2010) Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):141–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0977-5 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Jacofsky DJ, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 31(10):2353–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026 CrossRefPubMed

19.

van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31(5):1016–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840PubMed

21.

Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD (2018) Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 33(6):1719–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.036 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Wong T, Wang CJ, Wang JW, Ko JY (2014) Functional outcomes of uni-knee arthroplasty for medial compartment knee arthropathy in asian patients. Biomed J 37(6):406–410. https://doi.org/10.4103/2319-4170.132877 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gaudiani MA, Nwachukwu BU, Baviskar JV, Sharma M, Ranawat AS (2017) Optimization of sagittal and coronal planes with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 24(4):837–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.05.002 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Roche M (2015) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the MAKO experience. Orthop Clin North Am 46(1):125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2014.09.008 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22(2):117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.004 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Chawla H, Khamaisy S, Thein R, Pearle AD (2016) Predictors of subjective outcome after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. j arthroplasty 31(7):1453–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.038 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4 Suppl):S219–S225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):506–511CrossRef

29.

Small SR, Berend ME, Rogge RD, Archer DB, Kingman AL, Ritter MA (2013) Tibial loading after UKA: evaluation of tibial slope, resection depth, medial shift and component rotation. J Arthroplasty 28(9 Suppl):179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.004 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nunley RM, Nam D, Johnson SR, Barnes CL (2014) Extreme variability in posterior slope of the proximal tibia: measurements on 2395 CT scans of patients undergoing UKA? J Arthroplasty 29(8):1677–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

MacCallum KP, Danoff JR, Geller JA (2016) Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(1):93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Outcomes of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up
verfasst von: Konstantinos Dretakis
Vasilios G. Igoumenou
Publikationsdatum: 26.03.2019
Verlag: Springer Paris
Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02424-4

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Outcomes of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up

Abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

Stem length in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty: Does it make a difference in bone remodeling?

Neck of femur fracture: Previous history of malignancy is not an indication to send femoral head for routine histology

A new geometric model to quantify the area of glenoid bone defect and medialisation of the native joint line in glenohumeral arthritis

Increased opioid consumption in diabetics with operative ankle fractures: a retrospective case–control study

Talar-sided osteochondral lesion of the subtalar joint following the intra-articular calcaneal fracture: study via a modified computed tomography mapping analysis

Timing of surgical interventions for upper cervical epidural abscess: a case report and review of the literature

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie