Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26441329.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
This study compared tibial baseplate alignment (TBA) between robotic-arm-assisted (RAA) and conventional (CONV) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). We hypothesized that RAA would increase the percentage of implants within a predetermined safe zone (SZ). We identified 177 CONV and 87 RAA UKAs through our center's patient registry. Two individuals reviewed postoperative knee radiographs and determined TBA. Coronal baseplate positioning was more accurate (i.e., within the SZ) for RAA (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0. 0001). Conversely, sagittal alignment was more accurate for CONV (4.9° ± 2.8° vs. 2.4° ± 1.6°, p < 0.0001). RAA was more precise in both planes (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the percentage of implants within the SZ between the two groups (p = 1.0).
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
- Joint Diseases
- Knee Prosthesis
- Robotic Surgical Procedures
Anatomy
- knee
- tibia