Comparison between standard technique and image-free robotic technique in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Preliminary data

Paolo Di Benedetto, Michele Mario Buttironi, Stefano Magnanelli, Vanni Cainero, Araldo Causero, Paolo Di Benedetto, Michele Mario Buttironi, Stefano Magnanelli, Vanni Cainero, Araldo Causero

Abstract

The factors that guarantee the survival of the unicompartmental prosthesis implant seems to be linked to the accurate positioning of the components. The aim of our study is to compare the standard operative technique and the assisted navigation technique to understand if the robotic technology is able to obtain more accurate implants and with a better outcome. In the period between January 2016 and February 2018, in our Clinic, were performed 94 medial unicompartmental knee implants. The implantation of the medial unicompartmental prosthesis was performed in 30 cases with the standard technique and in 29 cases with the image-free robotic technique (Navio Surgical System). The objective of our study was to evaluate the anatomical and mechanical axes, the tibial slope, the coronal inclination of the femoral tibial space, the coronal angulation of the tibial and femoral component and the height of the Joint-Line. Furthermore, to evaluate the outcome we has execute international scores (IKDC and KSS Insall mod.). The advanced navigation seems to allow the implantation of the unicompartmental prosthesis more precisely, although not always with a statistically significant difference compared to the standard technique. further clinical studies are needed to analyze the medium and long-term survival rate, as well as the patient's subjective outcome.

Conflict of interest statement

Each author declares that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangement etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Pangonogram pre- and post-operative

References

    1. Pogliacomi F, Defilippo M, Guardoli A, Scaravella E. High tibial osteotomy: our experience with hemicallotasis method. Acta Biomed. 2014;85(Suppl 2):85–90.
    1. Vaienti E, Scita G, Ceccarelli F, Pogliacomi F. Understanding the human knee and its relationship to total knee replacement. Acta Biomed. 2017;88(2S):6–16.
    1. Lum ZC, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Berend KR. Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. The bone & joint journal. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B):28–33.
    1. Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, Andersson GB, Della Valle CJ. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2016;23(6):1016–1019.
    1. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1453–1459.
    1. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(3):681–686.
    1. Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: A comparative meta-analysis. Knee. 2017;24(2):179–190.
    1. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The bone & joint journal. 2015;97-B(11):1506–1511.
    1. Murray DW, Liddle AD, Dodd CA, Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty. The bone & joint journal. 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.
    1. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J, et al. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(4 Suppl):S219–225.
    1. Lonner JH, Klement MR. Robotic-assisted Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Options and Outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018
    1. Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):206–212.
    1. Smith JR, Riches PE, Rowe PJ. Accuracy of a freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee replacement. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(2):162–169.
    1. Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S. Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop. 2017;41(11):2265–2271.
    1. Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P, Harris S, Jakopec M, Rodriguez F, et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(2):188–197.
    1. Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):803–808. e801.
    1. Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:481039.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa