Literature DB >> 31218389

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

Francesco Zambianchi1, Giorgio Franceschi2, Elisa Rivi3, Federico Banchelli4, Andrea Marcovigi3, Claudio Khabbazè2, Fabio Catani3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this multicentre, retrospective, observational study was to determine the incidence of revision and clinical results of a large cohort of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral UKAs at short-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that patients who receive robotic-arm-assisted UKA will have high survivorship rates and satisfactory clinical results.
METHODS: Between 2013 and 2016, 437 patients (470 knees) underwent robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral UKAs at two centres. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score 12 (FJS-12) and Short-Form Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales (SF-12) were administered to estimate patients' overall health status pre- and post-operatively. Results were dichotomized as 'excellent' and 'poor' if KOOS/FJS-12 were more than or equal to 90 and SF-12 was more or equal to 45. Associations between patients' demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes were investigated. Post-operative complications and pain persistence were recorded.
RESULTS: Following exclusions and losses to follow-up, 338 medial and 67 lateral robotic-arm-assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 33.5 and 36.3 months, respectively. Three medial UKAs were revised, resulting in a survivorship of 99.0%. No lateral implants underwent revision (survivorship 100%). On average, significant improvement in all clinical scores was reported in both medial and lateral UKA patients. In medial UKA patients, male gender was associated with higher probability of better scores in overall KOOS, FJS-12 and in specific KOOS subscales. No other associations were reported between biometric parameters and outcome for either medial or lateral UKA.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted medial and lateral UKAs demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and excellent survivorship at 3-year follow-up. Continued patient follow-up is needed to determine the long-term device performance and clinical satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical outcome; Robotic arm; Survivorship; UKA

Year:  2019        PMID: 31218389     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05566-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  32 in total

1.  Development of the Italian version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for patients with knee injuries: cross-cultural adaptation, dimensionality, reliability, and validity.

Authors:  M Monticone; S Ferrante; S Salvaderi; B Rocca; V Totti; C Foti; G S Roi
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 6.576

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.  Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today?

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Padhraig F O'Loughlin; Daniel O Kendoff
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Robotic-Arm-Assisted vs Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The 2-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Alisdair Gilmour; Angus D MacLean; Philip J Rowe; Matthew S Banger; Iona Donnelly; Bryn G Jones; Mark J G Blyth
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Shorter Hospital Stay and Lower 30-Day Readmission After Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Justin Drager; Adam Hart; Jad Abou Khalil; David J Zukor; Stephane G Bergeron; John Antoniou
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: State-of-the Art and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Alexander B Christ; Andrew D Pearle; David J Mayman; Steven B Haas
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Fixed bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty--short to midterm survivorship and knee scores for 101 prostheses.

Authors:  James R A Smith; James R Robinson; Andrew J Porteous; James R D Murray; Mohammad A Hassaballa; Neil Artz; John H Newman
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics.

Authors:  Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Charles L Saltzman
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-18

10.  Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement.

Authors:  Lina H Ingelsrud; Ewa M Roos; Berend Terluin; Kirill Gromov; Henrik Husted; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  5 in total

1.  5-Year Survivorship and Outcomes of Robotic-Arm-Assisted Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael A Gaudiani; Linsen T Samuel; John N Diana; Jennifer L DeBattista; Thomas M Coon; Ryan E Moore; Atul F Kamath
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  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

Review 3.  Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review.

Authors:  Pei Liu; Fei-Fan Lu; Guo-Jie Liu; Xiao-Hong Mu; Yong-Qiang Sun; Qi-Dong Zhang; Wei-Guo Wang; Wan-Shou Guo
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2021-05-02

4.  Difference between medial and lateral tibia plateau in the coronal plane: importance of preoperative evaluation for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sager H Alruwaili; Kwan Kyu Park; Ick Hwan Yang; Woo-Suk Lee; Byung-Woo Cho; Hyuck Min Kwon
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Is high tibial osteotomy better than proximal fibula osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis? A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical controlled trials.

Authors:  Hetao Huang; Sicong Huang; Guihong Liang; Lingfeng Zeng; Jianke Pan; Weiyi Yang; Hongyun Chen; Jun Liu; Biqi Pan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.