Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Abstract

We performed a retrospective review in a matched group of patients on the use of robotic-assisted UKA implantation versus UKA performed using standard operative techniques to assess differences between procedures. While both techniques resulted in reproducible and excellent outcomes with low complication rates, the results demonstrate little to no clinical or radiographic difference in outcomes between cohorts. Average operative time differed significantly with, and average of 20 minutes greater in, the robotic-assisted UKA group (P=0.010). Our minimal clinical and radiographic differences lend to the argument that it is difficult to justify the routine use of expensive robotic techniques for standard medial UKA surgery, especially in a well-trained, high-volume surgeon. Further surgical, clinical and economical study of this technology is necessary.