Radiological outcomes following manual and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 33739128.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1302/2633-1462.23.BJO-2020-0205.R1 and PMC identifier 8009894.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Postoperative radiological outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic centre were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiologically measured to identify outliers. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers. Robotic system navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA. Given the association between component placement errors and revision in UKA, this strong significant improvement in accuracy may improve implant survival. Level of Evidence: III Cite this article: <i>Bone Jt Open</i> 2021;2-3:191-197.
Anatomy
- knee