Robotic-assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Research Articles

Reducing edge loading and alignment outliers with image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case controlled study

BackgroundSurvivorship of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is technique-dependent. Correct femoral-tibial component positioning associates with improved survivorship. Image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables preoperative and intraoperative planning of alignment and assessment of positioning prior to execution. This study aimed to compare the radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted UKA (R-UKA) and conventional UKA (C-UKA).MethodsThis retrospective case control study involved 140 UKA (82 C-UKA and 58 R-UKA) performed at an academic institution between March 2016 to November 2020, with a mean follow-up of 3 years. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for mechanical axis and femoral-tibial component position. Component position was measured by two methods: (1) femoral-tibial component contact point with reference to four medial-to-lateral quadrants of the tibial tray and (2) femoral-tibial component contact point deviation from the center of the tibial tray as a percentage of the tibial tray width. Baseline demographics and complications were recorded.ResultsThere was a higher mean component deviation in C-UKA compared with R-UKA using method 2 (17.2% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.007), but no difference in proportion of zonal outliers using method 1 (4 outliers in C-UKA, 5.1% vs. 1 outlier in R-UKA, 1.8%; P = 0.403). R-UKA showed no difference in mean mechanical alignment (C-UKA 5° vs. R-UKA 5°; P = 0.250). 2-year survivorship was 99% for C-UKA and 97% for R-UKA. Mean operative time was 18 min longer for R-UKA (P < 0.001).ConclusionImage-free robotic-assisted UKA had improved component medio-lateral alignment compared with conventional technique.

Robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty restored prearthritic alignment and led to superior functional outcomes compared with conventional techniques.

Robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can ensure precise preoperative planning, minimise soft tissue damage and restore native coronal alignment. However, few studies have investigated how these advantages translate into differences in early postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to compare differences in early outcomes between conventional UKA (C-UKA) and robotic-assisted UKA (R-UKA). This retrospective study investigated two groups of patients who underwent medial UKA: C-UKA group (n = 35) and R-UKA group (n = 35). We assessed (1) serum indicators (hemoglobin, creatine kinase and C-reactive protein) and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) at postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 4 and 6; (2) radiologic parameters including joint line height change and arithmetic and mechanical hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA and mHKA); (3) patient-reported outcomes including Knee Society Scores, Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) at 1-year follow-up. Despite similar serum indicator results, pain VAS was lower in the R-UKA group than in the C-UKA group at PODs 2 (2.5 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2, p = 0.02), 4 (2.4 ± 0.9 vs. 3.3 ± 1.0, p = 0.03) and 6 (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, p < 0.01). The joint line height change was significantly lower in the R-UKA group than in the C-UKA group (0.9 mm ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.0 mm ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.02). The equivalence test for preoperative aHKA and postoperative mHKA revealed equivalence in only the R-UKA group (p < 0.01). The R-UKA group showed better WOMAC and FJS-12 compared to C-UKA group at 1-year follow-up. R-UKA led to lower pain VAS in the early postoperative period compared with C-UKA. Additionally, R-UKA effectively restored the joint line and prearthritic lower limb alignment, resulting in superior functional outcomes at 1-year follow-up compared with C-UKA. Level III.

Evaluating the cost of robotic-assisted total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

As uptake of robotic-assisted arthroplasty increases there is a need for economic evaluation of the implementation and ongoing costs associated with robotic surgery. The aims of this study were to describe the in-hospital cost of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RA-UKA) and determine the influence of patient characteristics and surgical outcomes on cost. This prospective cohort study included adult patients (≥ 18years) undergoing primary unilateral RA-TKA and RA-UKA, at a tertiary hospital in Sydney between April 2017 and June 2021. Patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from hospital medical records. Differences between outcomes for RA-TKA and RA-UKA were compared using independent sample t-tests. Logistic regression was performed to determine drivers of cost. Of the 308 robotic-assisted procedures, 247 were RA-TKA and 61 were RA-UKA. Surgical time, time in the operating room, and length of stay were significantly shorter in RA-UKA (p < 0.001); whereas RA-TKA patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to be discharged to in-patient rehabilitation (p = 0.009). Total in-hospital cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA cases (AU$18580.02 vs $13275.38; p < 0.001). Robotic system and maintenance cost per case was AU$3867.00 for TKA and AU$5008.77 for UKA. Patients born overseas and lower volume robotic surgeons were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-UKA. Increasing age and male gender were significantly associated with higher total cost of RA-TKA. Total cost was significantly higher for RA-TKA than RA-UKA. Robotic system costs for RA-UKA are inflated by the software cost relative to the volume of cases compared with RA-TKA. Cost is an important consideration when evaluating long term benefits of robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty in future studies to provide evidence for the economic sustainability of this practice.

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves functional outcomes, complications, and revisions.

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2 (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.

Excellent 10-Year survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

IntroductionRobotic-arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an excellent solution for patients suffering from single-compartment knee arthritis. While outcomes tend to be favorable for UKAs, revision operations, commonly due to component malpositioning and malalignment resulting in accelerated wear, are a major concern. Intraoperative technologies, such as robotic assistance, can help better ensure that implants are positioned based on a patient's specific anatomy and mechanical physiology. However, long-term survivorship and patient-reported satisfaction with robotic-assisted UKAs are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients who underwent robotic-arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Specifically, we evaluated: 1) 10-year survivorships; 2) patient satisfaction scores; and 3) re-operations. MethodsFrom a single surgeon and single institution, 185 patients who had a mean age of 65 years (range, 39 to 92) and a mean body mass index of 31.6 (range, 22.4 to 39) at a mean of 10 years follow-up were evaluated (range, 9 to 11). For all patients, the same robotic-assistive device was utilized intraoperatively, and all patients underwent standardized physical therapy and received standardized pain control management. Then 10-year survivorships with Kaplan-Meir curves, patient satisfaction evaluations with a 5-point Likert scale, and re-operations were assessed as primary outcomes. ResultsOverall implant survivorship was 99%, with only two patients requiring revision surgery. There was one patient who was converted to a total knee arthroplasty, while the other patient underwent polyethylene exchange at 5 weeks for an acute infection with successful implant retention. Overall, 97% of the patients were satisfied with their postoperative outcomes, with 81% of patients reporting being very satisfied. There were two other patients who required arthroscopic intervention: one to remove a cement loose body, the other to remove adhered scar from the fat pad and the anterior cruciate ligament. ConclusionThis study is one of the first to provide longer-term (mean 10-year) survivorship and patient-reported satisfaction outcomes for robotic-assisted UKA patients. These data show strong support for utilizing this surgical technique, as nearly all patients maintained their original prostheses and reported being satisfied after a mean of 10 years. Therefore, based on these results, we recommend the use of robotic assistance when performing UKAs.

Does robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty restore native joint line more accurately than with conventional instruments?

The study's primary aim is the restoration of native joint line in patients having robotic-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty and conventional unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Literature in the past has demonstrated that reducing the joint line can result in greater failure rates. This is a prospective cohort investigation of patients who had medial UKA between March 2017 and March 2022.All patient's pre-operative and post-operative radiological joint line assessments were examined by two observers by Weber's methods. Robotic-assisted UKA performed with hand-held image-free robots was compared to conventional UKA groups. The distal position of the femoral component was higher in Group B utilizingconventional tools than in Group A employing robotic-assisted UKA. This positional difference was statistically significant. The mean difference among the pre-operative and post-operative joint lines in Group A was 1.6 ± 0.49 (range 0.8mm-2.4mm), while it was 2.47 ± 0.51 (range 1.6mm-3.9mm) (p 0.005) in Group B. In Group A, a greater percentage of the subjects (64%) attained a femoral component position within two millimetersfrom the joint line, whereas just 18% in Group B did. When compared with the conventional UKA technique, the meticulous attention to detail and planning forligament rebalancing when using the robotic-assisted UKA technique not solely enhancesurgical precision for implant placing but additionally provides excellent native joint line restoration and balancing. For validation of its longevity and survivability, the cohort must be tracked for a longer period of time.

Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty: Insights and Implications From Current Literature.

Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty has emerged as a promising development, aiming to enhance surgical precision and patient outcomes. This literature review examines the clinical efficacy, cost implications, environmental impact, and potential of telesurgery in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) relative to conventional techniques. A thorough literature search was conducted across medical databases. Clinical and radiological outcomes of RATKA and RAUKA were extracted and analyzed. Direct costs, operating time, surgeon learning curve, environmental implications, and the futuristic concept of telesurgery were also considered. Subjective patient assessments such as WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score, and SF-36, alongside objective measures like HSS score and KSS, were commonly used. Radiological parameters like hip-knee-ankle (HKA) and femorotibial angle provided insights into post-operative alignment. Evidence indicated sporadic high-level design studies, often with limited samples. Cost remains a major constraint with robotic systems, though high-volume cases might offset expenses. Environmental assessments revealed robotic surgeries generate a higher carbon footprint. Telesurgery, an evolving field, could transcend geographical boundaries but is not without challenges, including high costs, latency issues, and cyber threats. While robotic-assisted surgeries may hold promise in the future, substantial barriers, including acquisition costs, potential surgeon deskilling, and environmental concerns, need addressing. Greater robot utilization may drive costs down with more competitors entering the market. Continued research, especially multi-center RCTs, is pivotal to solidifying the role of robotic systems in knee arthroplasty.

Patient satisfaction following robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a viable alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis patients with single-compartment involvement, with advantages including accelerated recovery, reduced pain, and improved function. Robotic-assisted UKA (rUKA) is a promising development that ensures precise implant positioning and limb alignment. However, concerns about complications remain. OBJECTIVE: This study looks at patient satisfaction as a key metric for determining the efficacy of rUKA versus manual UKA (mUKA). METHODS: The search strategy for this study followed PRISMA. Using precise keywords, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched. English articles were searched until August 2, 2023. Selection criteria included mUKA and rUKA patient satisfaction studies. The NOS scale evaluated study quality. Meta-analysis was done with R and heterogeneity analysis. RESULTS: This systematic review examined 5 studies with 1060 UKAs (532 robotic-assisted and 528 manual). Variable satisfaction assessment methods were used. Three studies found no difference in patient satisfaction after robotic-assisted UKA, but two found a higher satisfaction. Meta-analysis showed robotic-assisted UKA improved patient satisfaction (OR = 1.72 [1.25–2.37]). Overall, most studies showed low risk of bias, except one with higher bias. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that robotic assistance may enhance patient satisfaction in UKA procedures.

No Difference in Range of Motion, Components, or Complications Following Conversion of Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Manual TKA After Undergoing Manual or Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundConversion surgery from unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a challenge due to scarring, implant/cement removal, and loss of bony landmarks. Robotic-assisted (RA) TKA may assist in challenges seen in manual conversion TKA. The aim of this study is to identify if there are differences in components and functional outcomes dependent on manual/RA primary UKA and conversion TKA. MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing conversion from UKA to TKA over a 10-year period at a single institution. Data extracted included surgical technique, reason for UKA failure, range of motion at 1 year, need for augments, and utilization of revision components. ResultsForty-nine patients (50 knees) with a UKA converted to a TKA were divided into 4 groups based on primary and conversion surgery: manual-to-manual (n = 11), manual-to-robot (n = 11), robot-to-manual (n = 11), and robot-to-robot (n = 17). There was no difference in need for augments (P = .376), size of poly (P = .23), postoperative flexion (P = .52), or extension (P = .76) at 1 year between the 4 groups. However, patients with primary manual UKA did require significantly more augments during revision (P = .032). ConclusionsOur study did not show any statistically significant differences of primary RA or manual UKA to RA or manual TKA in terms of range of motion at 1 year, complications, or differences in components. RA conversion from UKA to TKA is a new but equivalent technique to manual conversion. Primary surgery may impact the requirement for augments during conversion surgery.

Robotic Versus Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery.

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: historical perspectives and current innovations.

Robotic assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) has emerged as a successful approach for optimizing implant positioning accuracy, minimizing soft tissue injury, and improving patient-reported outcomes. The application of RAUKA is expected to increase because of its advantages over conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. This review article provides an overview of RAUKA, encompassing the historical development of the procedure, the features of the robotic arm and navigation systems, and the characteristics of contemporary RAUKA. The article also includes a comparison between conventional unicompartmental arthroplasty and RAUKA, as well as a discussion of current challenges and future advancements in the field of RAUKA.

Mid-Term Survivorship, Radiographic and Functional Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

The use of robotic-arm assistance for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) has become an area of interest to overcome technical challenges, improve accuracy, and optimize patient outcomes. Due to the rise in osteoarthritis (OA) and robotic assistance, well-powered long-term studies are warranted. The aim of this study was to analyze midterm survivorship, radiographic changes, range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) of RAUKA. Patients who underwent RAUKA for medial compartmental OA were identified from April 2009 to May 2014. The query yielded 162 knees with a mean follow up of 6.5 years. Primary endpoints were to compare survivorship, final mechanical axis alignment, radiographic changes, mean ROM, and changes to the following PROMs: Knee Society Score (KSS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Statistical analyses were primarily descriptive. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were no revisions of the primary implant, one case required exchange of polyethylene bearing and debridement for deep infection, and five cases required additional surgical intervention with implant retention. Overall survivorship was 100%. Radiographic assessment demonstrated no mechanical loosening or osteolysis surrounding the implant. Mean ROM was 3 to 121.9º. Patients demonstrated a mean functional KSS of 78.55, IKDC of 78.22, and OKS of 43.94. The study supports excellent mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing RAUKA for medial compartment OA. Longer term follow-up studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this technology for patients undergoing RAUKA for medial compartment OA.

Robotic-Arm Assisted Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Case Series with Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up.

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been shown to be a successful treatment modality for isolated lateral osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The reproduction of proper knee kinematics, limb alignment, as well as proper soft tissue balancing and component positioning have been shown to be of the utmost importance for a successful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Robotic assistance has shown to be a reliable tool in order to replicate these factors, as compared to manual instrumentation alone. Recent studies have shown the potential of robotic-assisted surgery in controlling these surgical factors for medial UKA; however, studies assessing outcomes of robotic-assisted lateral UKA (RAUKA) are lacking. Therefore, a retrospective single-center study was performed to assess outcomes of lateral RAUKA. Patients who underwent lateral RAUKA from a single surgeon at a central institution between January 2008 and June 2017 were identified. All patients received a lateral UKA with a fixed-bearing metal backed onlay tibial component. Patients over the age of 18, with at least a five-year follow-up and a lateral UKA were contacted by phone and asked a series of questions to determine satisfaction and survivorship. Each patient was asked in a "yes" or "no" manner, if they have had their implant revised or reoperated for any reason, and a 5-point Likert scale was used to assess satisfaction. Data was collected from 50 patients (53 knees). Of the patients that responded: 32 (60%) were right knees; 32 (60%) were female, and average follow-up was 7.6 years (5-14 years). Of the 53 knees, one had a revision (98% survivorship). Excluding the revision, 51 (98%) of the included cases were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their surgery. Robotic-arm assisted lateral UKA was found to have high survivorship and a satisfaction rate in patients that had at least a five-year follow-up. In the future, larger prospective comparison studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to adequately compare survivorship and satisfaction rates of robotic-assisted lateral UKA to conventional UKA.

Implant Position, Survivorship, and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Manual Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTwo related recent reports described high error rates for implant positioning and reduced implant survivorship in manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MUKA) compared to robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RUKA). The present study scientifically replicated these reports by comparing MUKAs similarly performed by an experienced high-volume surgeon in similar patients using the same study methods as these reports. MethodsA total of 216 consecutive MUKAs were retrospectively evaluated radiographically for achievement of implant positioning targets. Achievement of targets was compared to the published MUKA and RUKA outcomes and correlated with revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures. ResultsThere were 20% of study MUKAs compared to 88.1% of comparison MUKAs (P < .001) and 31.4% of comparison RUKAs (P < .048) that failed to meet all 7 implant positioning targets. The MUKA revision rates were significantly lower in the study sample than for comparison MUKAs (3.2% versus 14.2%, P < .001). Implant survivorship was 91.7% (95% confidence interval 84.9, 98.5%) at 8.9 years compared to 70.0% (95% confidence interval 56.0, 80.0%) at 10.2 years, respectively. Most patient-reported outcome measures did not differ based on achievement of implant positioning targets (P ≥ .072). ConclusionsPresent study findings indicate that observations in the 2 recent reports may not be generalizable to all UKA surgeons. Additional data on the relationship between implant positioning and revision as well as functional outcomes are needed to identify appropriate robotic arthroplasty applications.

Retrospective analysis of robotic unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: patient demographics and outcomes.

With the growing number of robotic knee arthroplasties being performed, new outcomes must be analyzed to provide a database for comparing robotic and nonrobotic surgeries. These results can be utilized in the future to properly assess the significance of utilizing robotic technology in the operating room regarding patient outcomes and cost. The aims of this study are to: (1) analyze adverse outcomes from robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty and its relation to sex, body mass index (BMI), and age; and (2) explore any possible differences in outcomes among robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is hypothesized that sex, BMI, and age will play a role in adverse events experienced among robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. It is hypothesized that adverse outcomes will differ in robotic-assisted TKA v UKA. A retrospective analysis was performed utilizing 1,300 patient cases from a single surgeon that underwent robotic-assisted UKA or TKA utilizing a robotic surgical system. Demographics were sorted by age, sex, and BMI. Outcomes were sorted by the type of adverse event. The most common adverse event was further statistically analyzed by age, sex, and BMI and then compared to the total cohort. The most common adverse event was also broken down by TKA vs. UKA. The average age of the individuals undergoing this procedure was 63.6 years, with 52.3 % being female. The average BMI was 32.2. Of the 87 patients who experienced adverse events, 111 total events were documented. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) was the highest experienced adverse event. Among the MUA events, 79.5 % had a BMI over 30 (p=0.067), 72.8 % were female (p=0.014), and the average age was 59 years (p=0.019). Among the MUA adverse events, 76.9 % (n=30) were following a TKA and 23.1 % were following a UKA. When considering the entire sample (n=1,300), there was a statistically significant 12.6 times greater odds that an MUA occurred among those who had a TKA vs. UKA (p<0.001). Similar results were discovered when only considering those who had experienced an adverse event (n=87) because the odds of an MUA occurring among those who underwent a TKA was 4.67 times greater than those who underwent a UKA (p<0.001). MUA was the most common adverse event in this cohort of robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties. The other adverse events did not yield large enough cohort sizes to analyze statistically in relation to specific patient demographics. Younger patients and females were at significantly greater odds of needing MUA. A BMI over 30 was not found to have a statistically significant risk of needing an MUA after robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. Among the total cohort, those who underwent a TKA were at a 12.6 times greater odds of needing an MUA than those who received a UKA.

Impact of Alignment and Alignment Correction on Outcomes Following Robotic Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to retrospectively examine the relationship between preoperative and postoperative alignment in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures. MethodsA retrospective review of 374 patients who underwent robotic-assisted UKA was conducted. Patient demographics, history, and preoperative and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) scores were obtained via chart review. Average follow-up period was 2.4 years (range: 0.4 to 4.5 years) to chart review and 9.5 months (range: 6 to 48 months) to latest KOOS-JR. Preoperative and postoperative robotically-measured knee alignment was obtained from operative reports. Incidence of conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was determined by review of a health information exchange tool. ResultsMultivariate regressions showed no statistically significant relationship between preoperative alignment, postoperative alignment, or degrees of alignment correction and change in KOOS-JR score or achievement of KOOS-JR minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (P > .05). Patients who had >8 degrees of postoperative varus alignment had on average a 20% lower achievement of KOOS-JR MCID compared to patients who had <8 degrees of postoperative varus alignment; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). There were 3 patients who required conversion to TKA in the follow-up period, with no significant relationship to alignment variables (P > .05). ConclusionThere was no significant difference in KOOS-JR change for those patients who had a larger or smaller degree of deformity correction, and correction did not predict MCID achievement.

Functional Outcomes for Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs Functionally Aligned Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Using The Mako Robot: A Case Matched Series.

Functional Outcomes for Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs Functionally Aligned Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Using The Mako Robot: A Case Matched Series.

Early muscle recovery following robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BackgroundRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) improves implant accuracy, however whether this translates to patient function is less clear. Various outcomes have been reported but muscle recovery has not been previously investigated.ObjectiveTo explore sequential change in lower limb muscle strength following robotic-assisted UKA with isokinetic dynamometry.Results12 participants undergoing rUKA for medial compartment osteoarthritis were assessed pre-operatively, and at 6- and 12-weeks post-operatively. Maximal muscle strength changed over time in both quadriceps (p = 0.006) and hamstrings (p = 0.018) muscle groups. Quadriceps strength reduced from 88.52(39.86)Nm to 74.47(27.58)Nm by 6-weeks (p = 0.026), and then recovered to 90.41(38.76)Nm by 12-weeks (p = 0.018). Hamstring strength reduced from 62.45(23.18)Nm to 54.12(20.49)Nm by 6-weeks (p = 0.016), and then recovered to 55.07(17.99)Nm by 12-weeks (p = 0.028). By 12-weeks quadriceps strength was 70% and hamstrings 83% of the values achieved in the un-operated limb. Substantial improvement was seen in all other measures over time, with sequential positive change in Timed-up-and-go test (p = 0.015), 10 m walk test (p = 0.021), range of knee flexion (p = 0.016) and PROMs (p < 0.025).

Restoration or relative overcorrection of pre-arthritic coronal alignment leads to improved results following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

A pre-arthritic alignment strategy for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) aims to restore a patient's native lower limb alignment which may translate into improved outcomes. This study aimed to assess whether patients with pre-arthritically aligned knees versus patients with non-pre-arthritically aligned knees demonstrated improved mid-term outcomes and survivorship following medial UKA. The hypothesis was that pre-arthritic alignment in medial UKA would lead to better postoperative outcomes. A retrospective study of 537 robotic-assisted fixed-bearing medial UKA was conducted. During this procedure, the surgical goal was to restore pre-arthritic alignment guided by re-tensioning of the medial collateral ligament (MCL). For study purposes, coronal alignment was retrospectively evaluated using the mechanical hip-knee-ankle angle (mHKA). Pre-arthritic alignment was estimated through the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) algorithm. Knees were grouped according to the difference between postoperative mHKA and estimated pre-arthritic alignment (i.e., mHKA-aHKA) as Group 1 (pre-arthritically aligned: mHKA restored within 2.0° of the aHKA), Group 2 (mHKA > 2.0° overcorrected relative to the aHKA), or Group 3 (mHKA > 2.0° undercorrected relative to the aHKA). Outcomes included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritic Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), Kujala, proportions of knees achieving the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for these scores, and survivorship. PASS thresholds for KOOS, JR and Kujala were determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve method. A total of 369 knees were categorized as Group 1, 107 as Group 2, and 61 as Group 3. At 4.4 ± 1.6years follow-up, mean KOOS, JR was comparable among groups, while Kujala was significantly worse in Group 3. The proportion of knees achieving the PASS for Kujala (76.5 points) was lower in Group 3 (n = 32; 59%) compared to Group 1 (n = 260; 74%) (p = 0.02). 5-year survivorship was higher in Group 1 and Group 2 (99% and 100%, respectively) compared to Group 3 (91%) (p = 0.04). Pre-arthritically aligned knees and knees with relative overcorrection from their pre-arthritic alignment following medial UKA demonstrated improved mid-term outcomes and survivorship compared to knees with relative under correction from their pre-arthritic alignment. These results encourage restoring or relatively overcorrecting pre-arthritic alignment to optimize outcomes following medial UKA, and caution against under correction from the pre-arthritic alignment. IV, case series.

Mid-Term Survivorship, Radiographic and Functional Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

The use of robotic-arm assistance for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) has become an area of interest to overcome technical challenges, improve accuracy, and optimize patient outcomes. Due to the rise in osteoarthritis (OA) and robotic assistance, well-powered long-term studies are warranted. The aim of this study was to analyze midterm survivorship, radiographic changes, range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) of RAUKA. Patients who underwent RAUKA for medial compartmental OA were identified from April 2009 to May 2014. The query yielded 162 knees with a mean follow up of 6.5 years. Primary endpoints were to compare survivorship, final mechanical axis alignment, radiographic changes, mean ROM, and changes to the following PROMs: Knee Society Score (KSS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Statistical analyses were primarily descriptive. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were no revisions of the primary implant, one case required exchange of polyethylene bearing and debridement for deep infection, and five cases required additional surgical intervention with implant retention. Overall survivorship was 100%. Radiographic assessment demonstrated no mechanical loosening or osteolysis surrounding the implant. Mean ROM was 3 to 121.9º. Patients demonstrated a mean functional KSS of 78.55, IKDC of 78.22, and OKS of 43.94. The study supports excellent mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing RAUKA for medial compartment OA. Longer term follow-up studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this technology for patients undergoing RAUKA for medial compartment OA.