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

Main Article Content

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

Keywords

.

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 163 | PDF Downloads 58

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Lonner JH, Klement MR. Robotic-assisted Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Options and Outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.