Bicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Technique: NAVIO

Batailler, Cécile; White, Nathan J.; Servien, Elvire; Neyret, Philippe; Lustig, Sébastien

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16593-2_13

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Robotic‐arm‐assisted UKA (RAA) has shown promising results in improving radiographic alignment of the components [4, 8, 10] but it is unclear whether improved alignment alone translates into improved patient‐reported outcomes and survivorship. Batailler et al have shown improved radiographic alignment along with a decreased revision rate for RAA UKA in comparison with conventional technique, but few studies have compared patient‐reported outcomes following RAA UKA to conventional techniques (CONV) [3]. Therefore, the research question we aimed to answer was whether the usage of robotic‐arm‐assisted UKA affected outcome and survivorship of UKA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee replacement offers no early advantage over conventional unicompartmental knee replacement

Wong

Murtaugh

Lakra

et al. 2019

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for treating degenerative joint disease in a single compartment. Robotic‐arm‐assisted arthroplasty (RAA) has gained popularity and has theoretical benefits of improved outcomes over conventional (CONV) UKA due to the technical precision of bone preparation. This study compares the short‐term clinical outcomes, including survivorship and patient‐reported functional outcomes, for a series of medial UKAs performed with RAA and CONV. Methods One hundred seventy‐six consecutive fixed‐bearing medial UKAs were retrospectively identified with a minimum follow‐up of 2 years. One hundred and eighteen CONV and 58 RAA were performed. Pre‐ and post‐operative SF12, WOMAC, and KSS Functional Questionnaires were available for all patients. Results At 2 years, both groups improved in all functional outcomes, with no significant difference between the RAA and CONV cohorts. However, the RAA cohort had a significantly longer operative time (p < 0.001) and a higher early revision rate than the CONV group (7 [12.0%] vs. 7 [6.8%]; p < 0.05). Conclusions These results demonstrate that at short‐term follow‐up of 2 years, RAA was not superior to CONV in terms of functional scores and instead was associated with greater operative time and cost and lower survivorship. Therefore, at this time usage of RAA in UKA is not recommended compared to conventional UKA. Longer term studies are necessary to draw conclusions about the overall outcomes of RAA compared to CONV. Level of evidence III.

show abstract