Laura J Kleeblad1, Todd A Borus2, Thomas M Coon3, Jon Dounchis4, Joseph T Nguyen5, Andrew D Pearle1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Computer Assisted Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rebound Orthopedics & Neurosurgery, Portland, OR. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Coon Joint Replacement Institute, St. Helena, CA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NCH Orthopedics, Naples, FL. 5. Biostatistics Core, Healthcare Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have showed improved accuracy of lower leg alignment, precise component position, and soft-tissue balance with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). No studies, however, have assessed the effect on midterm survivorship. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, multicenter study was to determine midtem survivorship, modes of failure, and satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial UKA. METHODS: A total of 473 consecutive patients (528 knees) underwent robotic-arm-assisted medial UKA surgery at 4 separate institutions between March 2009 and December 2011. All patients received a fixed-bearing, metal-backed onlay tibial component. Each patient was contacted at minimum 5-year follow-up and asked a series of questions to determine survival and satisfaction. Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survivorship. RESULTS: Data were collected for 384 patients (432 knees) with a mean follow-up of 5.7 years (5.0-7.7). The follow-up rate was 81.2%. In total, 13 revisions were performed, of which 11 knees were converted to total knee arthroplasty and in 2 cases 1 UKA component was revised, resulting in 97% survivorship. The mean time to revision was 2.27 years. The most common failure mode was aseptic loosening (7/13). Fourteen reoperations were reported. Of all unrevised patients, 91% was either very satisfied or satisfied with their knee function. CONCLUSION: Robotic-arm-assisted medial UKA showed high survivorship and satisfaction at midterm follow-up in this prospective, multicenter study. However, in spite of the robotic technique, early fixation failure remains the primary cause for revision with cemented implants. Comparative studies are necessary to confirm these findings and compare to conventional implanted UKA and total knee arthroplasty. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Studies have showed improved accuracy of lower leg alignment, precise component position, and soft-tissue balance with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). No studies, however, have assessed the effect on midterm survivorship. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, multicenter study was to determine midtem survivorship, modes of failure, and satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial UKA. METHODS: A total of 473 consecutive patients (528 knees) underwent robotic-arm-assisted medial UKA surgery at 4 separate institutions between March 2009 and December 2011. All patients received a fixed-bearing, metal-backed onlay tibial component. Each patient was contacted at minimum 5-year follow-up and asked a series of questions to determine survival and satisfaction. Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survivorship. RESULTS: Data were collected for 384 patients (432 knees) with a mean follow-up of 5.7 years (5.0-7.7). The follow-up rate was 81.2%. In total, 13 revisions were performed, of which 11 knees were converted to total knee arthroplasty and in 2 cases 1 UKA component was revised, resulting in 97% survivorship. The mean time to revision was 2.27 years. The most common failure mode was aseptic loosening (7/13). Fourteen reoperations were reported. Of all unrevised patients, 91% was either very satisfied or satisfied with their knee function. CONCLUSION: Robotic-arm-assisted medial UKA showed high survivorship and satisfaction at midterm follow-up in this prospective, multicenter study. However, in spite of the robotic technique, early fixation failure remains the primary cause for revision with cemented implants. Comparative studies are necessary to confirm these findings and compare to conventional implanted UKA and total knee arthroplasty. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Kyle N Kunze; Daniel Farivar; Ajay Premkumar; Michael B Cross; Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle; Andrew D Pearle Journal: J Orthop Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Emily L Hampp; Nipun Sodhi; Laura Scholl; Matthew E Deren; Zachary Yenna; Geoffrey Westrich; Michael A Mont Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 5.853