Top

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Osteoarthrosis | KNEE

Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Authors: Francesco Zambianchi, Giorgio Franceschi, Elisa Rivi, Federico Banchelli, Andrea Marcovigi, Claudio Khabbazè, Fabio Catani

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 5/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this multicentre, retrospective, observational study was to determine the incidence of revision and clinical results of a large cohort of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral UKAs at short-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that patients who receive robotic-arm-assisted UKA will have high survivorship rates and satisfactory clinical results.

Methods

Between 2013 and 2016, 437 patients (470 knees) underwent robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral UKAs at two centres. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score 12 (FJS-12) and Short-Form Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales (SF-12) were administered to estimate patients’ overall health status pre- and post-operatively. Results were dichotomized as ‘excellent’ and ‘poor’ if KOOS/FJS-12 were more than or equal to 90 and SF-12 was more or equal to 45. Associations between patients’ demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes were investigated. Post-operative complications and pain persistence were recorded.

Results

Following exclusions and losses to follow-up, 338 medial and 67 lateral robotic-arm-assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 33.5 and 36.3 months, respectively. Three medial UKAs were revised, resulting in a survivorship of 99.0%. No lateral implants underwent revision (survivorship 100%). On average, significant improvement in all clinical scores was reported in both medial and lateral UKA patients. In medial UKA patients, male gender was associated with higher probability of better scores in overall KOOS, FJS-12 and in specific KOOS subscales. No other associations were reported between biometric parameters and outcome for either medial or lateral UKA.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted medial and lateral UKAs demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and excellent survivorship at 3-year follow-up. Continued patient follow-up is needed to determine the long-term device performance and clinical satisfaction.

Level of evidence

Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.

Alnachoukati OK, Barrington JW, Berend KR, Kolczun MC, Emerson RH, Lombardi AV, Mauerhan DR (2018) Eight hundred twenty-five medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplaties: the first 10-year US multi-center survival analysis. J Arthroplast 33(3):677–683CrossRef

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 Jt Surg Br 94(1641):8

Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S (2018) Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5 CrossRefPubMed

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplast 27(3):430–436CrossRef

Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1933–1939CrossRef

Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB (2018) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplast 33(7):1994–2001CrossRef

Drager J, Hart A, Khalil JA, Zukor DJ, Bergeron SG, Antoniou J (2016) Shorter hospital stay and lower 30-day readmission after unicondylar knee arthroplasty compared to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31(2):356–361CrossRef

Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA (2012) Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27:803–808CrossRef

Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S124–S130CrossRef

10.

Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ, Banger MS, Donnelly I, Jones BG, Blyth MJ (2018) Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplast 33(7):S109–S115CrossRef

11.

Hung M, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Saltzman CL (2018) Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World J Orthop 9(3):41–49CrossRef

12.

Ingelsrud LH, Roos EM, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A (2018) Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop 89(5):541–547CrossRef

13.

Kandil A, Werner BC, Gwathmey WF, Browne JA (2015) Obesity, morbid obesity and their related medical comorbidities are associated with increased complications and revision rates after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30(3):456–460CrossRef

14.

Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS (2019) An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Jt J 101(1):24–33CrossRef

15.

Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD (2018) Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplast 33(6):1719–1726CrossRef

16.

Longo UG, Loppini M, Trovato U, Rizzello G, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2015) No difference between unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for the management of medial osteoarthtritis of the knee in the same patient: a systematic review and pooling data analysis. Br Med Bull 114(1):65–73CrossRef

17.

Lustig S, Barba N, Magnussen RA, Servien E, Demey G, Neyret P (2012) The effect of gender on outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 19(3):176–179CrossRef

18.

MacCallum KP, Danoff JR, Geller JA (2016) Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(1):93–98CrossRef

19.

Mofidi A, Plate JF, Lu B, Conditt MA, Lang JE, Poehling GG, Jinnah RH (2014) Assessment of accuracy of robotically assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1918–2195CrossRef

20.

Monticone M, Ferrante S, Salvaderi S, Rocca B, Totti V, Foti C et al (2012) Development of the Italian version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for patients with knee injuries: cross-cultural adaptation, dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Osteoarthr Cartil 20(4):330–335CrossRef

21.

Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, Dodd CA, Berend KR (2013) Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 20(6):461–465CrossRef

22.

Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO (2010) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25:230–237CrossRef

23.

Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW (2017) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 24(2):419–428CrossRef

24.

Plate JF, Augart MA, Seyler TM, Bracey DN, Hoggard A, Akbar M, Jinnah RH, Poehling GG (2017) Obesity has no effect on outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):645–651CrossRef

25.

Redish MH, Fennema P (2018) Good results with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee resurfacing after 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(5):959–965CrossRef

26.

Smith JR, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, Hassaballa MA, Artz N, Newman JH (2014) Fixed bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty—short to midterm survivorship and knee scores for 101 prostheses. Knee 21(4):843–847CrossRef

27.

van der List JP, Chawla H, Villa JC, Pearle AD (2016) Different optimal alignment but equivalent functional outcomes in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 23(6):987–995CrossRef

28.

van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplast 31(5):1016–1021CrossRef

29.

Walker T, Gotterbarm T, Bruckner T, Merle C, Streit MR (2015) Return to sports, recreational activity and patient-reported outcomes after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3281–3287CrossRef

30.

Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34(3):220–233CrossRef

31.

Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A, Grandi G, Fiacchi F, Mugnai R, Catani F (2015) Surgeon’s experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(7):2074–2080CrossRef

32.

Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, Paul S, Pearle AD (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):681–686CrossRef

Title: Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Authors: Francesco Zambianchi
Giorgio Franceschi
Elisa Rivi
Federico Banchelli
Andrea Marcovigi
Claudio Khabbazè
Fabio Catani
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Osteoarthrosis
Osteoarthrosis
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05566-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Slight under-correction using individualized intentional varus femoral cutting leads to favorable outcomes in patients with lateral femoral bowing and varus knee

Satisfactory medium-term outcomes with lateral condylar sliver osteotomy to correct valgus deformity in total knee replacements

Patients aged in their 70s do not have a high risk of progressive osteoarthritis following arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement correction and labral preservation surgery

Bilateral changes in tendon structure of patients diagnosed with unilateral insertional or midportion achilles tendinopathy or patellar tendinopathy

No difference in strength and clinical outcome between early and late repair after Achilles tendon rupture

Response to letter: Achilles tendon re-rupture