Literature DB >> 33579393

Robotic-assisted vs conventional surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiological study.

Roberto Negrín1, Jaime Duboy1, Magaly Iñiguez1, Nicolás O Reyes2, Maximiliano Barahona3, Gonzalo Ferrer1, Carlos Infante1,3, Nicolás Jabes1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has increased and new technologies have been developed to improve patient survival and satisfaction, soft tissue balance, alignment, and component size. Robot-assisted systems offer an increase in surgical precision and accuracy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the precision of component position using five radiological parameters in conventional and robotic-assisted medial UKA using the NAVIO system.
METHODS: A cohort study was designed for patients who underwent medial UKA between April 2017 and March 2019 in a single center. Patients were allocated in the conventional (UKA-C) or robotic-assisted (UKA-R) group. The variables analyzed were age, gender, affected knee side, length of hospital stay, surgical time, and radiological measurements such as anatomical medial distal femoral angle (aMDFA), anatomical medial proximal tibial angle (aMPTA), tibial slope, the sagittal femoral angle, and the component size. A target was defined for each measurement, and a successful UKA was defined if at least four radiological measures were on target after surgery. Also, patients' reported outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and a numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain.
RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included, 18 of them underwent UKA-R. The success rate for UKA in the UKA-R group was 87%; meanwhile, in the UKA-C group this was 28%, this difference was significant and powered (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001; 1 - β = 0.95). Also, a 5-point difference in favor of the UKA-R group in the median OKS (p = 0.01), and a significantly lower median NRS for pain (p < 0.000) were found after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: UKA-R achieved more precision in the radiological parameters' measure in this study. Also, UKA-R has a trend towards a better OKS and a lower NRS for pain at short-term follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Robotic-assisted surgery; Unicompartmental knee

Year:  2021        PMID: 33579393     DOI: 10.1186/s43019-021-00087-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res        ISSN: 2234-0726


  1 in total

1.  Improved Accuracy of Component Positioning with Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Data from a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Stuart W Bell; Iain Anthony; Bryn Jones; Angus MacLean; Philip Rowe; Mark Blyth
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 5.284

  1 in total
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparison of Robotic and Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients with Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Christopher Wu; Nobuei Fukui; Yen-Kuang Lin; Ching-Yu Lee; Shih-Hsiang Chou; Tsung-Jen Huang; Jen-Yuh Chen; Meng-Huang Wu
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Robotic Arm Technology.

Authors:  Micah MacAskill; Baylor Blickenstaff; Alexander Caughran; Matthew Bullock
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-12-10

4.  Efficacy of GCWB106 (Chrysanthemum zawadskii var. latilobum extract) in osteoarthritis of the knee: A 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Jeong Ku Ha; Jin Seong Kim; Joo Young Kim; Jong Bok Yun; Yun Young Kim; Kyu Sung Chung
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.