Robotics Improves Alignment Accuracy and Reduces Early Revision Rates for UKA in the Hands of Low-volume UKA Surgeons

Overview

Journal Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2021 Aug 18

PMID 34406509

Citations 5

Authors

Peter Savov

Lars-Rene Tuecking

Henning Windhagen

Tilman Calliess

Max Ettinger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: It is known that in uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) low-volume surgeons have a higher complication and revision rate than high-volume surgeons. Further, robotic-assisted UKA leads to lower early revision rate as well as fewer limb and joint line outliers compared to conventional UKA. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outliers' and revision rate of low-volume UKA surgeons with different robotic systems at short-term follow-up.

Methods: In this case-control study, 103 robotic-assisted UKAs were included. The procedures were performed between 2016 and 2019 from two low-volume UKA surgeons with an imageless (IL) (63 patients) and image-based (IB) (40 patients) robotic system. Alignment outliers, joint line (JL) reconstruction, complication and revision rates of the two different robotic systems were analyzed. The minimum follow-up was two years. Outliers were defined as a postoperative valgus malalignment greater than 182°. The surgery time for all procedures was evaluated.

Results: The overall revision rate was 3.9% (4 of 103). Two occurred in the IB group (5.0%) and two in the IL group (3.2%). No valgus malalignment outliers were observed in both groups. The mean JL was not distalized by more than 2 mm in both groups (IL: 1.3 ± 1.6 mm vs. IB: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, p value 0.08). The IL procedures had a significant lower mean surgery time (55 ± 13 min vs. 68 ± 14, p value 0.001).

Conclusion: Robotic-assisted UKA is a safe procedure in the hand of low-volume UKA surgeons. Robotic-assisted UKA minimizes overcorrection into valgus mal-alignment. Low revision rates are observed at short-term follow-up for robotic-assisted UKA. The choice of the different robotic systems has no impact on the outcome.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of changes in fixed flexion deformity following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Wignadasan W, Magan A, Kayani B, Fontalis A, Chambers A, Rajput V Bone Jt Open. 2024; 5(11):992-998.

PMID: 39500347 PMC: 11537735. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.511.BJO-2024-0139.

How to Perform Better on Oxford UKA? A Technical Note from over 500 Surgical Experiences.

Zhang P, Bai J, Wang J, Zhu C, Zhou W Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(9):2445-2453.

PMID: 37403559 PMC: 10475656. DOI: 10.1111/os.13811.

The Deep-MCL Line: A Reliable Anatomical Landmark to Optimize the Tibial Cut in UKA.

Parratte S, Daxhelet J, Argenson J, Batailler C J Pers Med. 2023; 13(5).

PMID: 37241025 PMC: 10222460. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050855.

Implant-dependent behavior of tunnel widening and clavicular button migration after arthroscopic-assisted treatment of acromioclavicular joint instabilities.

Dey Hazra R, El Bajjati H, Hanhoff M, Warnhoff M, Ellwein A, Fossum B Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023; 33(6):2533-2540.

PMID: 36596884 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-022-03466-x.

[Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis].

Tuecking L, Ettinger M, Windhagen H, Savov P Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2022; 51(9):727-738.

PMID: 35945459 DOI: 10.1007/s00132-022-04286-x.

References

Kim M, Koh I, Choi Y, Lee J, In Y . Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 32(5):1453-1459. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.034. View

Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J . Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(4 Suppl):S219-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004. View

Cool C, Needham K, Khlopas A, Mont M . Revision Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted and Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(5):926-931. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.018. View

Small S, Berend M, Rogge R, Archer D, Kingman A, Ritter M . Tibial loading after UKA: evaluation of tibial slope, resection depth, medial shift and component rotation. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9 Suppl):179-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.004. View

Tuecking L, Savov P, Richter T, Windhagen H, Ettinger M . Clinical validation and accuracy testing of a radiographic decision aid for unicondylar knee arthroplasty patient selection in midterm follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28(7):2082-2090. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-05912-x. View

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

Vasso M, Corona K, DApolito R, Mazzitelli G, Panni A . Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Modes of Failure and Conversion to Total Knee Arthroplasty. Joints. 2017; 5(1):44-50. PMC: 5672863. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601414. View

Noticewala M, Geller J, Lee J, Macaulay W . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relieves pain and improves function more than total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(8 Suppl):99-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.044. View

Simpson D, Price A, Gulati A, Murray D, Gill H . Elevated proximal tibial strains following unicompartmental knee replacement--a possible cause of pain. Med Eng Phys. 2009; 31(7):752-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.02.004. View

10.

Klasan A, Parker D, Lewis P, Young S . Low percentage of surgeons meet the minimum recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty usage thresholds: Analysis of 3037 Surgeons from Three National Joint Registries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 30(3):958-964. PMC: 8901519. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06437-7. View

11.

ODonnell T, Abouazza O, Neil M . Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 28(1):33-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.031. View

12.

Calliess T, Ettinger M, Windhagen H . [Computer-assisted systems in total knee arthroplasty. Useful aid or only additional costs]. Orthopade. 2014; 43(6):529-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-014-2298-y. View

13.

Boonen B, Kerens B, Schotanus M, Emans P, Jong B, Kort N . Inter-observer reliability of measurements performed on digital long-leg standing radiographs and assessment of validity compared to 3D CT-scan. Knee. 2016; 23(1):20-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.08.008. View

14.

Hamilton T, Pandit H, Lombardi A, Adams J, Oosthuizen C, Clave A . Radiological Decision Aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(10 Supple B):3-10. PMC: 5047136. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0432.R1. View

15.

Heyse T, El-Zayat B, De Corte R, Scheys L, Chevalier Y, Fuchs-Winkelmann S . Balancing UKA: overstuffing leads to high medial collateral ligament strains. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 24(10):3218-3228. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3848-5. View

16.

Vasso M, Del Regno C, DAmelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Panni A . Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee. 2015; 22(2):117-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.004. View

17.

Di Martino A, Bordini B, Barile F, Ancarani C, Digennaro V, Faldini C . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: a registry study on 6453 prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 29(10):3323-3329. PMC: 8458185. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06184-1. View

18.

Thienpont E, Parvizi J . A New Classification for the Varus Knee. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(10):2156-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.034. View

19.

Heyse T, Slane J, Peersman G, Dworschak P, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Scheys L . Balancing mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 25(12):3733-3740. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4241-8. View

20.

Mergenthaler G, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Lustig S . Is robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? A case control study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 29(3):931-938. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06051-z. View