Literature DB >> 29611158

Decreased Time to Return to Work Using Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Conventional Techniques.

Alexander H Jinnah1, Marco A Augart1, Daniel L Lara1, Riyaz H Jinnah2, Gary G Poehling1, Chukwuweike U Gwam1, Johannes F Plate1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a commonly used procedure for patients suffering from debilitating unicompartmental knee arthritis. For UKA recipients, robotic-assisted surgery has served as an aid in improving surgical accuracy and precision. While studies exist detailing outcomes of robotic UKA, to our knowledge, there are no studies assessing time to return to work using robotic-assisted UKA. Thus, the purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the time to return to work and to achieve the level of work activity following robotic-assisted UKA to create recommendations for patients preoperatively. We hypothesized that the return to work time would be shorter for robotic-assisted UKAs compared with TKAs and manual UKAs, due to more accurate ligament balancing and precise implementation of the operative plan.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients scheduled to undergo a robotic-assisted UKA at an academic teaching hospital were prospectively enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria included employment at the time of surgery, with the intent on returning to the same occupation following surgery and having end-stage knee degenerative joint disease (DJD) limited to the medial compartment. Patients were contacted via email, letter, or phone at two, four, six, and 12 weeks following surgery until they returned to work. The Baecke physical activity questionnaire (BQ) was administered to assess patients' level of activity at work pre- and postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS Enterprise Guide (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) and Excel® (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess the demographics of the patient population. Boxplots were generated using an Excel® spreadsheet to visualize the BQ scores and a two-tailed t-test was used to assess for differences between pre- and postoperative scores with alpha 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean time to return to work was 6.4 weeks (SD=3.4, range 2-12 weeks), with a median time of six weeks. There was no difference seen in the mean pre- and postoperative BQ scores (2.70 vs. 2.69, respectively; p=0.87).
CONCLUSION: The findings of the current study suggest that most patients can return to work six weeks following robotic-assisted UKA which appears to be shorter than conventional UKA and TKA. Future level I studies are needed to verify our study findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29611158      PMCID: PMC6613386     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Technol Int        ISSN: 1090-3941


  22 in total

1.  [Knee alloplasty and working ability. The significance of knee alloplasty for working ability of patients who were working prior to surgery].

Authors:  M B Nielsen; P W Kristensen; M Lamm; H M Schrøder
Journal:  Ugeskr Laeger       Date:  1999-05-03

2.  Projections of US prevalence of arthritis and associated activity limitations.

Authors:  Jennifer M Hootman; Charles G Helmick
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-01

Review 3.  Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology.

Authors:  Jess H Lonner
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2009-02

4.  Preoperative predictors of returning to work following primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph F Styron; Wael K Barsoum; Kathleen A Smyth; Mendel E Singer
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Neil P Walton; Ismail Jahromi; Peter L Lewis; Peter J Dobson; Kevin R Angel; David G Campbell
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Patient satisfaction, function and return to work after knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  L P Jorn; R Johnsson; S Toksvig-Larsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1999-08

7.  Return to work following knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J A J Foote; H K Smith; S C Jonas; R Greenwood; A E Weale
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Christopher A Walter; Jorge Aziz-Jacobo; Nicholas A Cheney
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The effect of total knee replacement on employment in patients under 60 years of age.

Authors:  H Lyall; John Ireland; M Y El-Zebdeh
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature.

Authors:  Bernardino Saccomanni
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.980

View more
  2 in total

1.  Is robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? A case control study.

Authors:  Guillaume Mergenthaler; Cécile Batailler; Timothy Lording; Elvire Servien; Sébastien Lustig
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Patients return to work sooner after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Arthur J Kievit; P Paul F M Kuijer; Laurens J de Haan; Koen L M Koenraadt; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Matthias U Schafroth; Rutger C I van Geenen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 4.342

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.