Literature DB >> 35962232

Is combined robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a good solution for the young arthritic knee?

Constant Foissey1, Cécile Batailler2, Jobe Shatrov3, Elvire Servien2,4, Sébastien Lustig2,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency can be a consequence or a cause of femoro-tibial osteoarthritis (OA). Several studies have published satisfactory outcomes of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and combined ACL reconstruction despite its absence classically being considered a contraindication. A major challenge in the ACL deficient knee is obtaining appropriate gap balancing and limb axis. Robotically assisted UKA allows for precise control of these factors; however, it's utilisation as a tool with combined ACL reconstruction and UKA has not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotically assisted UKA with combined ACL reconstruction.
METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of ten patients operated by a single surgeon from 2016 to 2020. All surgery was performed using a cemented fixed bearing UKA prosthesis (Journey uni, Smith and Nephew®) (8 medial, 2 lateral) inserted with the assistance of an image-free robotic-assisted system (BlueBelt, Navio, Smith and Nephew®). All ACL reconstructions were performed using hamstring autograft. Clinical assessment included International Knee Score (IKS) score, Tegner score and patient satisfaction. Radiological assessment was performed to assess radiolucent lines, progression of OA in the other compartments, Hip-Knee-Ankle angle and Posterior Tibial Slope.
RESULTS: There were eight females (80%), mean age was 57 ± 7 [48-70], mean BMI was 26 ± 3 [22-31]. The mean follow-up was 45 months ± 13 months [24-66]. Mean post-operative IKS knee and function score were respectively 96 ± 4.5 [88-100] and 93 ± 8.2 [74-100], mean Tegner score was 4.5 ± 1.4 [3-6]. Nine patients (90%) returned to sport; one patient (10%) was dissatisfied because of residual pain preventing a return to a desired level of sport. 100% of the radiological objectives were achieved. No radiolucent lines were seen at the last follow-up. There were two re-operations (20%) for stiffness requiring arthroscopic arthrolysis at two and three months respectively following surgery, with full recovery of the flexion at the last follow-up in both cases. No other complications were observed.
CONCLUSION: Robotic UKA associated with ACL reconstruction provides satisfactory early patient outcomes and accurate implant positioning. The first results in terms of return to sports were promising.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Failure; Loosening; Robotic-assisted procedure; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental knee replacement

Year:  2022        PMID: 35962232     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05544-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.479


  31 in total

1.  Tibiofemoral kinematics of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient weightbearing, living knee employing vertical access open "interventional" multiple resonance imaging.

Authors:  Martin Logan; Edward Dunstan; James Robinson; Andrew Williams; Wady Gedroyc; Michael Freeman
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2004 Apr-May       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  S H White; P F Ludkowski; J W Goodfellow
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-07

3.  Anterior cruciate reconstruction combined with valgus upper tibial osteotomy: 12 years follow-up.

Authors:  N Bonin; T Ait Si Selmi; S T Donell; H Dejour; P Neyret
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  The influence of coronal plane deformity on mediolateral ligament status: an observational study in varus knees.

Authors:  Johan Bellemans; H Vandenneucker; J Vanlauwe; J Victor
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Nathan White; Filippo Maria Ranaldi; Philippe Neyret; Elvire Servien; Sébastien Lustig
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty combined to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Alberto Ventura; Claudio Legnani; Clara Terzaghi; Stefano Iori; Enrico Borgo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Satisfactory outcomes following combined unicompartmental knee replacement and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Andrea Volpin; S G Kini; D E Meuffels
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Outcome of combined unicompartmental knee replacement and combined or sequential anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 52 cases with mean follow-up of five years.

Authors:  J S Weston-Simons; H Pandit; C Jenkins; W F M Jackson; A J Price; H S Gill; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-09

9.  [Evaluation of methods for radiographic measurement of the tibial slope. A study of 83 healthy knees].

Authors:  J Brazier; H Migaud; F Gougeon; A Cotten; C Fontaine; A Duquennoy
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  1996

10.  Predicting the Feasibility of Correcting Mechanical Axis in Large Varus Deformities With Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Andrew D Pearle; Austin T Fragomen; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 4.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.