Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(07): 752-758
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1742647
Original Article

Accuracy of Intraoperative Mechanical Axis Alignment to Long-Leg Radiographs following Robotic-Arm–Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Martin W. Roche
1   Hospital for Special Surgery Florida, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, West Palm Beach, Florida
,
Rushabh M. Vakharia 
2   Maimonides Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brooklyn, New York
,
Tsun Y. Law
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopedic Research Institute, Holy Cross Hospital, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
,
Karim G. Sabeh
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Improper alignment and implant positioning following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been shown to lead to postoperative pain and increase the incidence of revision procedures. The use of robotic-arm assistance for UKA (RAUKA) has become an area of interest to help overcome these challenges. The accuracy of intraoperative alignment compared with standing long-leg X-rays postoperatively following medial RAUKA has been in question. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) determine final mean intraoperative coronal alignment in extension utilizing an image based intraoperative navigation system, and (2) compare final intraoperative alignment to 6-week weight-bearing (WB) long-leg X-rays. Patients who underwent RAUKA for medial compartmental osteoarthritis were identified from January 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019, through our institution's joint registry. The query yielded 136 (72 right and 64 left) patients with a mean age of 72.02 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.65 kg/m2 who underwent RAUKA. Final intraoperative alignment was compared with WB long leg X-rays 6 weeks postoperatively by measuring the mechanical alignment. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between intraoperative alignment to 6-week alignment. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Mean intraoperative coronal alignment after resections and trialing was 4.39 varus ± 2.40 degrees for the right knee, and 4.81 varus ± 2.29 degrees for the left knee. WB long-leg X-rays 6 weeks postoperatively demonstrated mechanical axis alignment for the right and left knees to be 3.01 varus ± 2.10 and 3.7 varus ± 2.38 degrees, respectively. This resulted in a change in alignment of 1.36 ± 1.76 and 1.12 ± 1.84 degrees for the right and left knees, respectively (p < 0.05). Pearson's correlation coefficient demonstrated a correlation of 0.69 between intraoperative to long-leg-X-ray alignment. RAUKA demonstrates excellent consistency when comparing postoperative WB long-leg X-rays to final intraoperative image-based non-WB alignment.

Keywords

Robotic assisted - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - mechanical alignment - accuracy


Publication History

Received: 23 May 2021

Accepted: 09 December 2021

Article published online:
03 February 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Vasso M, Antoniadis A, Helmy N. M V. Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current indications and failure modes. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3 (08) 442-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A. et al. Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (12) 3157-3162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vasso M, Corona K, D'Apolito R, Mazzitelli G, Panni AS. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: modes of failure and conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2017; 5 (01) 44-50
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW. Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016; 28 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim SJ, Postigo R, Koo S, Kim JH. SJ K. Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1895-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. M V. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. P H. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (03) 506-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y. Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (01) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA. MB C. Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2): 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E, McAuley JP, Engh Jr CA, Engh GA. WG H. Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2): 98-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hamilton WG, Ammeen DJ, Hopper Jr. RH. WG H. Mid-term survivorship of minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing implant: revision rate and mechanisms of failure. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (05) 989-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lim HC, Bae JH, Song SH, Kim SJ. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in Korean patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (08) 1071-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. H P. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (02) 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J. Société d'Orthopédie et de Traumatologie de l'Ouest (SOO). Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (4, suppl) S219-S225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pearle AD, O'Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (02) 230-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Conditt MA, Roche MW. Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl. 01) 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Bingham RJ, Ek ET, Stoney JD, Choong PFM. The long leg radiograph is a reliable method of assessing alignment when compared to computer-assisted navigation and computer tomography. Knee 2013; 20 (04) 242-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Swanson KE, Stocks GW, Warren PD, Hazel MR, Janssen HF. Does axial limb rotation affect the alignment measurements in deformed limbs?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; (371) 246-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gbejuade HO, White P, Hassaballa M, Porteous AJ, Robinson JR, Murray JR. HO G. Do long leg supine CT scanograms correlate with weight-bearing full-length radiographs to measure lower limb coronal alignment?. Knee 2014; 21 (02) 549-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Mechanical, anatomical, and kinematic axis in TKA: concepts and practical applications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014; 7 (02) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shima H, Okuda R, Yasuda T, Jotoku T, Kitano N, Kinoshita M. H S. Radiographic measurements in patients with hallux valgus before and after proximal crescentic osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (06) 1369-1376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bujang MA. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Arch Orofac Sci 2017; 12 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. MJG B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017; 6 (11) 631-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Netravali NA, Shen F, Park Y, Bargar WL. A perspective on robotic assistance for knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 970703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. SW B. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Maderbacher G, Baier C, Benditz A. et al. Presence of rotational errors in long leg radiographs after total knee arthroplasty and impact on measured lower limb and component alignment. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (08) 1553-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hunt MA, Fowler PJ, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR, Giffin JR. Foot rotational effects on radiographic measures of lower limb alignment. Can J Surg. 2006; 49 (06) 401-406 PubMed
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schober P, Bossers SM, Schwarte LA. Statistical significance versus clinical importance of observed effect sizes: what do p values and confidence intervals really represent?. Anesth Analg 2018; 126 (03) 1068-1072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vakharia RM, Sodhi N, Cohen-Levy WB, Vakharia AM, Mont MA, Roche MW. RM V. Comparison of patient demographics and utilization trends of robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (06) 621-627
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?. Knee 2013; 20 (04) 268-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Deese JM, Gratto-Cox G, Carter DA, Sasser Jr. TM, Brown KL. JM D. Patient reported and clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: Minimum two year follow-up. J Orthop 2018; 15 (03) 847-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Annual report 2019. Accessed October 29, 2021: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Coon T, Driscoll MD, Conditt MA. Robotically assisted UKA is more accurate than manually instrumented UKA. Accessed December 28, 2021: http://www.ors.org/Transactions/55/2439.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Roche MW, Augustin D, Conditt MA. Accuracy of robotically assisted UKA. Orthopaedic Proceedings 2018; 92-B (Suppl. 01) 127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar