Reducing edge loading and alignment outliers with image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case controlled study.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Wai Hong Lau, Wai Kiu Thomas Liu, Kwong Yuen Chiu, Man Hong Cheung, Amy Cheung, Ping Keung Chan, Vincent Wai Kwan Chan, Henry Fu
{"title":"Reducing edge loading and alignment outliers with image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case controlled study.","authors":"Wai Hong Lau, Wai Kiu Thomas Liu, Kwong Yuen Chiu, Man Hong Cheung, Amy Cheung, Ping Keung Chan, Vincent Wai Kwan Chan, Henry Fu","doi":"10.1186/s42836-024-00259-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survivorship of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is technique-dependent. Correct femoral-tibial component positioning associates with improved survivorship. Image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables preoperative and intraoperative planning of alignment and assessment of positioning prior to execution. This study aimed to compare the radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted UKA (R-UKA) and conventional UKA (C-UKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective case control study involved 140 UKA (82 C-UKA and 58 R-UKA) performed at an academic institution between March 2016 to November 2020, with a mean follow-up of 3 years. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for mechanical axis and femoral-tibial component position. Component position was measured by two methods: (1) femoral-tibial component contact point with reference to four medial-to-lateral quadrants of the tibial tray and (2) femoral-tibial component contact point deviation from the center of the tibial tray as a percentage of the tibial tray width. Baseline demographics and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a higher mean component deviation in C-UKA compared with R-UKA using method 2 (17.2% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.007), but no difference in proportion of zonal outliers using method 1 (4 outliers in C-UKA, 5.1% vs. 1 outlier in R-UKA, 1.8%; P = 0.403). R-UKA showed no difference in mean mechanical alignment (C-UKA 5° vs. R-UKA 5°; P = 0.250). 2-year survivorship was 99% for C-UKA and 97% for R-UKA. Mean operative time was 18 min longer for R-UKA (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Image-free robotic-assisted UKA had improved component medio-lateral alignment compared with conventional technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00259-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Survivorship of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is technique-dependent. Correct femoral-tibial component positioning associates with improved survivorship. Image-free robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables preoperative and intraoperative planning of alignment and assessment of positioning prior to execution. This study aimed to compare the radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted UKA (R-UKA) and conventional UKA (C-UKA).

Methods: This retrospective case control study involved 140 UKA (82 C-UKA and 58 R-UKA) performed at an academic institution between March 2016 to November 2020, with a mean follow-up of 3 years. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for mechanical axis and femoral-tibial component position. Component position was measured by two methods: (1) femoral-tibial component contact point with reference to four medial-to-lateral quadrants of the tibial tray and (2) femoral-tibial component contact point deviation from the center of the tibial tray as a percentage of the tibial tray width. Baseline demographics and complications were recorded.

Results: There was a higher mean component deviation in C-UKA compared with R-UKA using method 2 (17.2% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.007), but no difference in proportion of zonal outliers using method 1 (4 outliers in C-UKA, 5.1% vs. 1 outlier in R-UKA, 1.8%; P = 0.403). R-UKA showed no difference in mean mechanical alignment (C-UKA 5° vs. R-UKA 5°; P = 0.250). 2-year survivorship was 99% for C-UKA and 97% for R-UKA. Mean operative time was 18 min longer for R-UKA (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Image-free robotic-assisted UKA had improved component medio-lateral alignment compared with conventional technique.

通过无图像机器人辅助单室膝关节置换术减少边缘负荷和对齐异常值:一项病例对照研究。
背景:内侧单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)的存活率与技术有关。正确的股骨-胫骨组件定位可提高存活率。无图像机器人辅助单室膝关节置换术可在术前和术中规划对位,并在实施前对定位进行评估。本研究旨在比较机器人辅助单间室膝关节置换术(R-UKA)和传统单间室膝关节置换术(C-UKA)的放射学结果:这项回顾性病例对照研究涉及一家学术机构在 2016 年 3 月至 2020 年 11 月期间实施的 140 例英国腹腔镜手术(82 例 C-UKA 和 58 例 R-UKA),平均随访 3 年。对术后X光片进行了机械轴和股骨-胫骨组件位置评估。组件位置通过两种方法测量:(1) 股骨-胫骨组件接触点与胫骨托四个内侧-外侧象限的参考值;(2) 股骨-胫骨组件接触点与胫骨托中心的偏差占胫骨托宽度的百分比。记录基线人口统计学和并发症:结果:与使用方法2的R-UKA相比,C-UKA的平均组件偏差更高(17.2% vs. 12.8%;P = 0.007),但使用方法1的区域异常值比例没有差异(C-UKA有4个异常值,5.1% vs. R-UKA有1个异常值,1.8%;P = 0.403)。R-UKA在平均机械对线方面没有差异(C-UKA为5°,R-UKA为5°;P = 0.250)。C-UKA的2年存活率为99%,R-UKA为97%。R-UKA的平均手术时间比C-UKA长18分钟(P = 0.250):与传统技术相比,无图像机器人辅助UKA改善了组件的内外侧对齐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信