Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2023

Open Access 14-11-2022 | Knee Osteoarthritis | KNEE

Similar survivorship at the 5-year follow-up comparing robotic-assisted and conventional lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Authors: Guido Maritan, Giorgio Franceschi, Roberto Nardacchione, Emanuele Furlan, Ilaria Mariani, Nicola Ursino, Riccardo D’Ambrosi

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 3/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective study aims to analyse the survivorship and functional outcomes of two samples with similar preoperative clinical and demographic data of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed with robotic and conventional surgery at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Methods

In this retrospective study, the clinical records of two cohorts for 95 lateral UKA implants were analysed. The first cohort consisted of 43 patients with cemented lateral UKA performed with the conventional procedure (Conventional group). The second cohort consisted of 52 patients who received robot-assisted cemented lateral UKA (Robotic group). Clinical evaluation of the two samples entailed evaluating the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score divided into subscales (symptoms and stiffness, pain, function in daily living, function in sport and recreation and quality of life) for each patient. Revision was defined as the failure of the implant (periprosthetic joint infection, periprosthetic fracture or aseptic loosening), and survival was based on implant revision.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 90.3 ± 9.1 months for the Conventional Group and 95.4 ± 11.0 months for the Robotic Group (n.s.). Each patient was clinically evaluated on the day before surgery (T0), at a minimum 1-year follow-up (T1) and at a minimum 5-year follow-up (T2). In both groups, all clinical scores improved between T0 and T1 and between T0 and T2 (p < 0.05); for both groups, no differences were noted in any clinical scores between T1 and T2 (n.s.). No significant differences in any clinical score were found between the two groups at each follow-up (n.s.). Survival analysis reported no differences between the two groups at the final 1-year follow-up, with three failures (2 aseptic loosening and 1 periprosthetic fracture) in the Conventional group and two failures (1 patellofemoral osteoarthritis and 1 inexplicable pain) in the Robotic group (n.s.).

Conclusions

This study shows excellent clinical outcomes and revision rates in robotic arm-assisted and manual techniques for lateral UKA, with no clinical differences at medium- to long-term follow-up.

Level of evidence

Level III—comparative study.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Smith E, Lee D, Masonis J, Melvin JS (2020) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 8:1–11CrossRef
2.
Zambianchi F, Franceschi G, Rivi E, Banchelli F, Marcovigi A, Khabbazè C, Catani F (2020) Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:1551–1559CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Onochie E, Al-Jabri T, Haddad FS (2019) Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev 4:611–617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
St Mart JP, de Steiger RN, Cuthbert A, Donnelly W (2020) The 3 year survivorship of robotically assisted versus nonrobotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 102-B:319–328CrossRef
5.
6.
Andrade C (2015) Examination of participant flow in the CONSORT diagram can improve the understanding of the generalisability of study results. J Clin Psychiatry 76:e1469-1471CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kim KT, Lee S, Kim J, Kim JW, Kang MS (2016) Clinical results of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 2 year follow-up. Clin Orthop 8:386–392CrossRef
8.
Lin J, Yan S, Ye Z, Zhao X (2020) A systematic review of MAKO-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot 16:1–7CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tille E, Beyer F, Auerbach K, Tinius M, Lützner J (2021) Better short-term function after unicompartmental compared to total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22:326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop 469:2992–2994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Canton G, Ratti C, Fattori R, Hoxhaj B, Murena L (2017) Periprosthetic knee fractures. A review of epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, management and outcome. Acta Biomed 88:118–128PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Banerjee S, Pierce T, Mont MA (2015) What host factors affect aseptic loosening after THA and TKA? Clin Orthop 473:2700–2709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: international knee documentation committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function short form (KOOS-PS), knee outcome survey activities of daily living scale (KOS-ADL), lysholm knee scoring scale, oxford knee score (OKS), western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), activity rating scale (ARS), and Tegner activity score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63:S208-228CrossRefPubMed
14.
Ghaferi AA, Schwartz TA, Pawlik TM (2021) STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies. JAMA Surg 156:577–578CrossRefPubMed
15.
Happ M, Bathke AC, Brunner E (2019) Optimal sample size planning for the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Stat Med 38:363–375CrossRefPubMed
16.
Migliorini F, Tingart M, Niewiera M, Rath B, Eschweiler J (2019) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:947–955CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mergenthaler G, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Lustig S (2021) Is robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? a case control study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:931–938CrossRefPubMed
18.
Thein R, Khamaisy S, Zuiderbaan HA, Nawabi DH, Pearle AD (2014) Lateral robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Sports Med Arthrosc 22:223–228CrossRefPubMed
19.
Robinson PG, Clement ND, Hamilton D, Blyth MJG, Haddad FS, Patton JT (2019) A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prosthesis design and type should be reported. J Bone Joint Surg Br 101-B:838–847CrossRef
20.
Baker PN, Jameson SS, Deehan DJ, Gregg PJ, Porter M, Tucker K (2012) Mid-term equivalent survival of medial and lateral unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of data from a National joint registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1641–1648CrossRefPubMed
21.
van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 45:432–462PubMed
22.
Barrett MC, Wilkinson FO, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Kunutsor SK (2021) Incidence, temporal trends and potential risk factors for aseptic loosening following primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 96,294 knees. Knee 31:28–38CrossRefPubMed
23.
Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M, Dunbar NJ, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA, Pearle AD (2013) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee 20:268–271CrossRefPubMed
24.
Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M (2016) Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomised controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:627–635CrossRefPubMed
25.
Burger JA, Kleeblad LJ, Sierevelt IN, Horstmann WG, van Geenen RCI, van Steenbergen LN, Nolte PA (2020) A comprehensive evaluation of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty short to mid-term survivorship, and the effect of patient and implant characteristics: an analysis of data from the dutch arthroplasty register. J Arthroplasty 35:1813–1818CrossRefPubMed
26.
Becker R, Mauer C, Stärke C, Brosz M, Zantop T, Lohmann CH, Schulze M (2013) Anteroposterior and rotational stability in fixed and mobile bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study using the robotic force sensor system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2427–2432CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fujita M, Hiranaka T, Mai B, Kamenaga T, Tsubosaka M, Takayama K, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T (2021) External rotation of the tibial component should be avoided in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 30:70–77CrossRefPubMed
28.
Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW (2016) Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision Analysis. J Arthroplasty 31:759–765CrossRefPubMed
29.
Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT (2019) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 101-B:1063–1070CrossRef
30.
Talari K, Goyal M (2020) Retrospective studies - utility and caveats. J R Coll Phys Edinb 50:398–402CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Similar survivorship at the 5-year follow-up comparing robotic-assisted and conventional lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Authors
Guido Maritan
Giorgio Franceschi
Roberto Nardacchione
Emanuele Furlan
Ilaria Mariani
Nicola Ursino
Riccardo D’Ambrosi
Publication date
14-11-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07218-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2023 Go to the issue

KNEE

UKA with a handheld robotic device results in greater surgeon physiological stress than conventional instrumentation

KNEE

Metaphyseal cones and sleeves are similar in improving short- and mid-term outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty revisions

KNEE

Decreased patient comorbidities and post-operative complications in technology-assisted compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty

Knee

A BMI above 30 results in satisfying outcomes in patients undergoing fixed-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

kNEE

Patient-reported impairment following TKA is reduced when a computationally simulated predicted ideal alignment is achieved

KNEE

The use of tourniquet in primary total knee arthroplasty does not increase the risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days of surgery: a Danish nationwide cohort study of 19,804 patients