Robotic-assisted Unicompartmental knee Arthroplasty optimizes joint line restitution better than conventional surgery

Abstract

Purpose To compare joint line restoration after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) between conventional and robotic-assisted surgery. Previous studies have shown that joint line distalization can lead to higher failure rates. The hypothesis was that robotic-assisted UKA is associated with less femoral component distalization and a precise tibial cut, which allows a more anatomical restitution of the knee joint line. Methods Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing medial or lateral UKA between May 2018 and March 2020. Preoperative and postoperative radiologic assessment of the joint line was performed by two observers, using three different methods, one for tibial slope and one for tibial resection. Robotic assisted UKA and conventional UKA groups were compared. Results Sixty UKA were included, of which 48 (77.42%) were medial. Robotic-assisted UKA were 40 (64.52%) and 22(35.48%) were conventional The distalization of the femoral component was higher in the conventional group despite the method of measurement used In both Weber methods, the difference was statistically different: Conventional 2.3 (0.9 to 5.6) v/s Robotic 1.5 (− 1.1 to 4.1) (p =0.0025*). A higher proportion of patients achieved a femoral component position ≤ two millimeters from the joint line using robotic-assisted UKA compared to the conventional technique . No statistical difference between robotic-assisted and conventional UKA was found in tibial resection and slope. Conclusion Robotic-assisted UKA shows a better rate of joint line restoration due to less femoral component distalization than conventional UKA. No difference was found in the amount of tibial resection between groups in this study. Level of evidence III

Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Freehand Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous Screw Fixation in Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Currently, robotic-assisted surgery is becoming more widely used in many orthopedic surgeries [ 9 , 25 , 26 ] and has shown superior results when compared to freehand surgery. Better outcomes with regard to reduced radiation exposure, greater healing rates, and potentially reduced hospitalization stay, as well as improved postoperative stability and mobilization, would support the theory of considering robotic-guided surgery as gold standard management in future practice, despite being a more costly option [ 13 ].…”

Controlled posterior condylar milling technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty minimises tibia resection during gap balancing: Short‐term clinical results

“…During primary TKA, the proximal tibia cut is typically made 2 mm below the surface of the medial tibia in varus knee OA. During UKA, the proximal tibia resection depth typically ranges from 4.1 to 7.5 mm [12,16,22,23]. Considering that the major reason for UKA revision is aseptic loosening of the tibial component, there is a tendency for the tibial bone defect to become larger compared to the initial tibial resection depth of UKA, making the conversion to TKA challenging [25,26].…”

Ten-Year Survivorship and Patient Satisfaction Following Robotic-Arm-Assisted Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

“…These modes of failure are similar to commonly reported reasons for failure after conventional medial UKA 9 . Initially, a robotic-arm-assisted technique was theorized to decrease the number of revisions for component loosening, owing to improved component positioning and restoration of joint-line orientation 36 . However, despite enhanced surgical precision, fixation failure remained a common cause of revision of cemented medial UKA.…”