Literature DB >> 28185777

Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Andrew D Pearle1, Jelle P van der List2, Lily Lee3, Thomas M Coon4, Todd A Borus5, Martin W Roche6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Successful clinical outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) depend on lower limb alignment, soft tissue balance and component positioning, which can be difficult to control using manual instrumentation. Although robotic-assisted surgery more reliably controls these surgical factors, studies assessing outcomes of robotic-assisted UKA are lacking. Therefore, a prospective multicenter study was performed to assess outcomes of robotic-assisted UKA.
METHODS: A total of 1007 consecutive patients (1135 knees) underwent robotic-assisted medial UKA surgery from six surgeons at separate institutions between March 2009 and December 2011. All patients received a fixed-bearing metal-backed onlay implant as tibial component. Each patient was contacted at minimum two-year follow-up and asked a series of five questions to determine survivorship and patient satisfaction. Worst-case scenario analysis was performed whereby all patients were considered as revision when they declined participation in the study.
RESULTS: Data was collected for 797 patients (909 knees) with average follow-up of 29.6months (range: 22-52months). At 2.5-years of follow-up, 11 knees were reported as revised, which resulted in a survivorship of 98.8%. Thirty-five patients declined participation in the study yielding a worst-case survivorship of 96.0%. Of all patients without revision, 92% was either very satisfied or satisfied with their knee function.
CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, robotic-assisted UKA was found to have high survivorship and satisfaction rate at short-term follow-up. Prospective comparison studies with longer follow-up are necessary in order to compare survivorship and satisfaction rates of robotic-assisted UKA to conventional UKA and total knee arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Robot; Robotic; Satisfaction; Survivorship; UKA; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28185777      PMCID: PMC5873313          DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  83 in total

1.  Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Katherine P MacCallum; Jonathan R Danoff; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-10-06

Review 3.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Todd Borus; Thomas Thornhill
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.020

4.  Mid-term survivorship of minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing implant: revision rate and mechanisms of failure.

Authors:  William G Hamilton; Deborah J Ammeen; Robert H Hopper
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Is tibiofemoral subluxation correctable in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Denis Nam; Saker Khamaisy; Brian P Gladnick; Sophia Paul; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 6.  The Role of Preoperative Patient Characteristics on Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis Critique.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Extent of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis before knee arthroplasty: multicenter data from the osteoarthritis initiative.

Authors:  Daniel L Riddle; William A Jiranek; Robert S Neff; Derek Whitaker; Jason R Hull
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Medium-term results of the AMC-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Guido Saxler; Dieter Temmen; Gustav Bontemps
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Marcus R Streit; Julia Streit; Tilman Walker; Thomas Bruckner; J Philippe Kretzer; Volker Ewerbeck; Christian Merle; Peter R Aldinger; Tobias Gotterbarm
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Johannes F Plate; Ali Mofidi; Sandeep Mannava; Beth P Smith; Jason E Lang; Gary G Poehling; Michael A Conditt; Riyaz H Jinnah
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-03-24
View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  [New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro].

Authors:  Malin Meier; Tilman Calliess; Carsten Tibesku; Johannes Beckmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Incidental findings detected on preoperative CT imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacements: clinical importance and the effect on the scheduled arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gary Tran; Lafi S Khalil; Allen Wrubel; Chad L Klochko; Jason J Davis; Steven B Soliman
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review.

Authors:  Roberto Negrín; Gonzalo Ferrer; Magaly Iñiguez; Jaime Duboy; Manuel Saavedra; Nicolas Reyes Larraín; Nicolas Jabes; Maximiliano Barahona
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-10-27

Review 4.  Robotics in trauma and orthopaedics.

Authors:  Karthik Karuppiah; Joydeep Sinha
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  Technology in Arthroplasty: Are We Improving Value?

Authors:  Bradford S Waddell; Kaitlin Carroll; Seth Jerabek
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-09

6.  Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Francesco Zambianchi; Giorgio Franceschi; Elisa Rivi; Federico Banchelli; Andrea Marcovigi; Claudio Khabbazè; Fabio Catani
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them.

Authors:  Johanna Elliott; Jobe Shatrov; Brett Fritsch; David Parker
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 8.  Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty (RAKA): The Technique, the Technology and the Transition.

Authors:  Vaibhav Bagaria; Omkar S Sadigale; Prashant P Pawar; Ravi K Bashyal; Ajinkya Achalare; Murali Poduval
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Matthew Banger; James Doonan; Philip Rowe; Bryn Jones; Angus MacLean; Mark J B Blyth
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Patient reported and clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: Minimum two year follow-up.

Authors:  J Melvin Deese; Gwen Gratto-Cox; Denny A Carter; Thomas M Sasser; Karah L Brown
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-08-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.