Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can reduce radiologic outliers compared to conventional techniques.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
28
04
2019
accepted:
15
11
2019
entrez:
4
12
2019
pubmed:
4
12
2019
medline:
31
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to those of conventional UKA in Asian patients. Fifty-five patients underwent robot-assisted UKA and 57 patients underwent conventional UKA were assessed in this study. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), American Knee Society (AKS) score, Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index scale score (WOMAC), and patellofemoral (PF) score values were compared between the two groups. The mechanical femorotibial angle (mFTA) and Kennedy zone were also measured. Coronal alignments of the femoral and tibial components and posterior slopes of the tibial component were compared. Additionally, polyethylene (PE) liner thicknesses were compared. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative ROM, AKS, WOMAC and PF score. Robot group showed fewer radiologic outliers in terms of mFTA and coronal alignment of tibial and femoral components (p = 0.022, 0.037, 0.003). The two groups showed significantly different PE liner thicknesses (8.4 ± 0.8 versus 8.8 ± 0.9, p = 0.035). Robot group was the only influencing factor for reducing radiologic outlier (postoperative mFTA) in multivariate model (odds ratio: 2.833, p = 0.037). In this study, robot-assisted UKA had many advantages over conventional UKA, such as its ability to achieve precise implant insertion and reduce radiologic outliers. Although the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted UKA over a short-term follow-up period were not significantly different compared to those of conventional UKA, longer follow-up period is needed to determine whether the improved radiologic accuracy of the components in robotic-assisted UKA will lead to better clinical outcomes and improved long-term survival.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to those of conventional UKA in Asian patients.
METHODS
Fifty-five patients underwent robot-assisted UKA and 57 patients underwent conventional UKA were assessed in this study. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), American Knee Society (AKS) score, Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index scale score (WOMAC), and patellofemoral (PF) score values were compared between the two groups. The mechanical femorotibial angle (mFTA) and Kennedy zone were also measured. Coronal alignments of the femoral and tibial components and posterior slopes of the tibial component were compared. Additionally, polyethylene (PE) liner thicknesses were compared.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative ROM, AKS, WOMAC and PF score. Robot group showed fewer radiologic outliers in terms of mFTA and coronal alignment of tibial and femoral components (p = 0.022, 0.037, 0.003). The two groups showed significantly different PE liner thicknesses (8.4 ± 0.8 versus 8.8 ± 0.9, p = 0.035). Robot group was the only influencing factor for reducing radiologic outlier (postoperative mFTA) in multivariate model (odds ratio: 2.833, p = 0.037).
CONCLUSION
In this study, robot-assisted UKA had many advantages over conventional UKA, such as its ability to achieve precise implant insertion and reduce radiologic outliers. Although the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted UKA over a short-term follow-up period were not significantly different compared to those of conventional UKA, longer follow-up period is needed to determine whether the improved radiologic accuracy of the components in robotic-assisted UKA will lead to better clinical outcomes and improved long-term survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31794587
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225941
pii: PONE-D-19-08204
pmc: PMC6890211
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0225941Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):84-90
pubmed: 22038173
J Arthroplasty. 2001 Dec;16(8):970-6
pubmed: 11740750
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jul 25;:null
pubmed: 31346669
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Apr;23(3):408-12
pubmed: 18358380
Bone Joint J. 2015 Oct;97-B(10 Suppl A):3-8
pubmed: 26430080
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Dec;9(4):432-438
pubmed: 29201296
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019 Aug;29(6):1305-1311
pubmed: 30915553
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009 Feb;38(2 Suppl):23-7
pubmed: 19340380
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2010 Apr;18(1):22-5
pubmed: 20427828
J Orthop Res. 2006 Apr;24(4):588-94
pubmed: 16514655
J Knee Surg. 2019 Mar;32(3):233-238
pubmed: 29618145
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Feb;31(2):395-400
pubmed: 26454570
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Jun;(423):161-5
pubmed: 15232443
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0205469
pubmed: 30308011
Orthop Clin North Am. 2016 Jan;47(1):29-40
pubmed: 26614918
Gait Posture. 2018 May;62:41-45
pubmed: 29524796
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Mar;78(2):226-8
pubmed: 8666630
Knee. 2013 Aug;20(4):268-71
pubmed: 23201147
Bone Joint Res. 2017 Nov;6(11):631-639
pubmed: 29162608
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010 Mar;7(2):219-39
pubmed: 20214428
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;(248):13-4
pubmed: 2805470
Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:837167
pubmed: 23634304
Orthopedics. 2007 Aug;30(8 Suppl):66-9
pubmed: 17824338
Bone Joint J. 2018 Aug;100-B(8):1033-1042
pubmed: 30062950
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1232-1240
pubmed: 30066017
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct;28(9):1571-4
pubmed: 23538124
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971 May;53(2):272-7
pubmed: 5578223
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Dec;62(8):1329-37
pubmed: 7440612
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Apr 20;98(8):627-35
pubmed: 27098321
Acta Orthop. 2010 Feb;81(1):90-4
pubmed: 20175656
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):170-182
pubmed: 27704318
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):3176-3183
pubmed: 28579444
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619-26
pubmed: 8245054
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Feb;15(2):224-7
pubmed: 10708090
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Aug;22(8):1918-25
pubmed: 24744171
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9):1779-83
pubmed: 24805827
J Orthop. 2018 Aug 16;15(3):847-853
pubmed: 30140132
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Aug;(221):278-85
pubmed: 3608312
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Nov;21(11):2462-7
pubmed: 23812439