Although there are many studies on the alignment advantages when using the robotic arm–assisted (RAA) system for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there have been questions regarding patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use this index to compare: (1) total, (2) physical function, and (3) pain scores for manual versus RAA patients. We compared 53 consecutive RAA to 53 consecutive manual TKAs. No differences in preoperative scores were found between the cohorts. Patients were administered a modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index satisfaction survey preoperatively and at 1-year postoperatively. The results were broken down to: (1) total, (2) physical function, and (3) pain scores. Univariate analysis with independent samples t-tests was used to compare 1-year postoperative scores. Multivariate models with stepwise backward linear regression were utilized to evaluate the associations between scores and surgical technique, age, sex, as well as body mass index (BMI). Statistical analyses were performed with a p < 0.05 to determine significance. The RAA cohort had significantly improved mean total (6 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 8 points, p = 0.03) and physical function scores (4 ± 4 vs. 6 ± 5 points, p = 0.02) when compared with the manual cohort. The mean pain score for the RAA cohort (2 ± 3 points [range, 0–14 points]) was also lower than that for the manual cohort (3 ± 4 points [range, 0–11 points]) (p = 0.06). On backward linear regression analyses, RAA was found to be significantly associated with more improved total (β coefficient [β] −0.208, standard error [SE] 1.401, p < 0.05), function (β = 0.216, SE = 0.829, p < 0.05), and pain scores (β −0.181, SE = 0.623, p = 0.063). The RAA technique was found to have the strongest association with improved scores when compared with age, gender, and BMI. This study suggests that RAA patients may have short-term improvements at minimum 1-year postoperatively. However, longer term follow-up with greater sample sizes is needed to further validate these results.

No abstract

Aims Earlier studies dealing with trends in the management of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) identified an increasing rate of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and a decreasing rate of joint-preserving procedures between 1992 and 2008. In an effort to assess new trends in the management of this condition, this study evaluated the annual trends of joint-preserving versus arthroplasties for patients aged < or > 50 years old, and the incidence of specific operative management techniques. Methods A total of 219,371 patients with ONFH were identified from a nationwide database between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. The mean age was 54 years (18 to 90) and 105,298 (48%) were female. The diagnosis was made using International Classification of Disease, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) procedure codes. The percentage of patients managed using each procedure during each year was calculated and compared between years. The trends in the use of the types of procedure were also evaluated. Results The rate of joint-preserving procedures was significantly higher in patients aged < 50 years compared with those aged > 50 years (4.93% vs 1.52%; p < 0.001). For the overall cohort, rates of arthroplasty were far greater than those for joint-preserving procedures. THA was the most commonly performed procedure (291,114; 94.03%), while osteotomy (3,598; 1.16%), partial arthroplasty (9,171; 2.96%), core decompression (1,200; 0.39%), and bone graft (3,026; 0.98%) were performed markedly less frequently. The annual percentage of patients managed using a THA (93.56% to 89.52%; p < 0.001), resurfacing (1.22% to 0.19%; p < 0.001), and osteotomy (1.31% to 1.05%; p < 0.001) also decreased during the study period. Conclusion We found that patients with ONFH have been most commonly managed with non-joint-preserving procedures. Our findings provide valuable insight into the current management of this condition and should increase efforts being made to save the hip joint. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):122–128.