Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(14): 1549-1555
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727115
Original Article

Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Reduces Components' Positioning Differences among High- and Low-Volume Surgeons

Fabrizio Matassi
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Matteo Innocenti 
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Niccolò Giabbani 
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Giacomo Sani 
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Andrea Cozzi Lepri
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Nicola Piolanti
2   Orthopaedics and Traumatology Division, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
,
Roberto Civinini
1   Orthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) has been introduced to improve accuracy in implant positioning and limb alignment, overcoming the reported high failure rates of conventional UKA. Indeed, mUKA is a technically challenging procedure strongly related to surgeons' skills and expertise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the likelihood of robotic-assisted surgery in reducing the variability of coronal and sagittal component positioning between high- and low-volume surgeons. We evaluated a prospective cohort of 161 robotic mUKA implanted between May 2018 and December 2019 at two high-volume robotic centers. Patients were divided into two groups: patients operated by “high-volume” (group A) or “low-volume” (group B) surgeons. We recorded intraoperative lower-limb alignment, component positioning, and surgical timing. Postoperatively, every patient underwent a radiographical protocol to assess coronal and sagittal femoral/tibial component alignment. Range of motion and other clinical outcomes were assessed pre- and 12 months postoperatively by using oxford knee score, forgotten joint score, and visual analog scale. Of 161 recruited knees, 149 (A: 101; B: 48) were available for radiographic analysis at 1 month, and clinical evaluation at 12 months. No clinical difference neither difference in mechanical alignment nor coronal/sagittal component positioning were found (p > 0.05). A significant difference was recorded in surgical timing (A: 57 minutes; B: 86 minutes; p < 0.05). No superficial or deep infections or other major complications have been developed during the follow-up. Robotics surgery in mUKA confirmed its value in improving the reproducibility of such technical procedure, with satisfactory clinical outcomes. Moreover, it almost eliminates any possible differences in component positioning, and lower limb alignment among low-and high- volume knee surgeons.

Keywords

medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - robotic-assisted surgery - MAKOplasty - component positioning - high- and low-volume surgeons

Note

The study and follow-up, respecting the criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki, have been approved by the institutional review board of Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine. The Institutional Review Board accepted the proposal of the study, and all selected patients were properly informed before surgery about the treatment and follow-up visits after discharge. All patients accepted to have their data been published on a journal.


Authors' Contributions

M.I. and F.M. are the two authors who made both the conception and the design of the work as well as they drafted the first version of the work. Each author has made substantial contributions to the design of the work as well as to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. All authors have also substantively revised the work and have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study), and they have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.




Publication History

Received: 24 November 2020

Accepted: 12 February 2021

Article published online:
14 April 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Ackroyd CE. Medial compartment arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (07) 937-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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 (05) 1453-1459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Patients with isolated lateral osteoarthritis: unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?. Knee 2016; 23 (06) 968-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K. et al. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (8, Suppl): 86-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, knee, & shoulder arthroplasty - Annual Report 2018. Adelaide AOA, 2018.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 New Zealand Joint Registry Annual Report EC, The New Zealand joint registry annual report editorial committee. New Zeal Joint Registry. Accessed 2016 at: https://nzoa.org.nz/nzoa-joint-registry
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P, Rolfson O. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register - Annual Report. Accessed 2017 at: https://shpr.registercentrum.se/shar-in-english/the-swedish-hip-arthroplasty-register/p/ryouZwaoe
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man: 15th Annual Report 2018. 15th Annual Report. Accessed 2018 at: https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/national-joint-registry-15th-annual-report-2018/#.YDyKwmgzZPY
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A. French Society for Hip and Knee. 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 2012; 98 (6, Suppl): S124-S130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (08) 702-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O. Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (04) 342-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Khamaisy S, Gladnick BP, Nam D, Reinhardt KR, Heyse TJ, Pearle AD. Lower limb alignment control: is it more challenging in lateral compared to medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty?. Knee 2015; 22 (04) 347-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 16 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
  • 17 Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S. et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 837167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
  • 19 Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk!. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 128-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (06) 1719-1726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kohn MD, Sassoon AA, Fernando ND. Classifications in brief: Kellgren-Lawrence Classification of Osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (08) 1886-1893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marcovigi A, Zambianchi F, Sandoni D, Rivi E, Catani F. Robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: a single centre experience. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2S): 54-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (05) 745-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 793-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 1016-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kim SJ, Postigo R, Koo S, Kim JH. Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1895-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mullaji AB, Shetty GM, Kanna R. Postoperative limb alignment and its determinants after minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (06) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kennedy WR, White RP. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (221) 278-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jeer PJS, Keene GCR, Gill P. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures. Knee 2004; 11 (05) 369-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sarangi PP, Karachalios T, Jackson M, Newman JH. [Patterns of failed internal unicompartmental knee prostheses, allowing persistence of undercorrection]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 1994; 80 (03) 217-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (423) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Diezi C, Wirth S, Meyer DC, Koch PP. Effect of femoral to tibial varus mismatch on the contact area of unicondylar knee prostheses. Knee 2010; 17 (05) 350-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chau R, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (04) 469-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA. The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (03) 351-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Murray DW, Liddle AD, Dodd CAF, Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (10) , Suppl A): 3-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vasso M, Antoniadis A, Helmy N. Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current indications and failure modes. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3 (08) 442-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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
  • 40 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. 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
  • 42 Vermue H, Luyckx T, Winnock de Grave P. et al. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with a learning curve for surgical time but not for component alignment, limb alignment and gap balancing. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Ponzio DY, Lonner JH. Preoperative mapping in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using computed tomography scans is associated with radiation exposure and carries high cost. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (06) 964-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Peersman G, Jak W, Vandenlangenbergh T, Jans C, Cartier P, Fennema P. Cost-effectiveness of unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis. Knee 2014; 21 (Suppl. 01) S37-S42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (04) 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH. Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop 2009; 38 (2, Suppl): 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar