Is Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Associated With Decreased Revision Rates? An Updated Matched Cohort Analysis

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Arthroplasty Today Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.artd.2025.101652

George Guild MD , Joseph Schwab MD , Bailey J. Ross MD , Mary Jane McConnell BS , Farideh Najafi MD , Thomas L. Bradbury MD

{"title":"Is Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Associated With Decreased Revision Rates? An Updated Matched Cohort Analysis","authors":"George Guild MD , Joseph Schwab MD , Bailey J. Ross MD , Mary Jane McConnell BS , Farideh Najafi MD , Thomas L. Bradbury MD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2025.101652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite increased utilization of robotic assistance during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), its impact on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to compare rates of postoperative revision and complications among patients undergoing robotic-assisted UKA (RA-UKA) versus manual UKA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective matched cohort study was performed. Trends analysis of the annual proportion of RA-UKA between 2010 and 2021 was performed, and RA-UKA patients (n = 3976) were matched 1:3 with manual UKA patients (n = 11,766) across age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and comorbidities. Rates of 2-year prosthesis-related complications were compared between the matched cohorts using multivariable logistic regression.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The annual proportion of UKA procedures performed with robotic assistance trended significantly upward (1.51% to 5.19%, <em>P</em> < .001). Within 2 years postoperatively, the RA-UKA cohort exhibited significantly lower rates of aseptic revision (1.84% vs 2.37%; odds ratio: 0.76; <em>P</em> = .040) and aseptic loosening (0.13% vs 0.42%; odds ratio: 0.32; <em>P</em> = .010). Total cost for the index UKA was significantly higher for the RA-UKA cohort ($10,321 vs $7,366; <em>P</em> < .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There has been a marked increase in utilization of RA-UKA. Compared to matched manual UKA, RA-UKA had lower rates of revision and aseptic loosening at 2-year follow-up, but at a higher total cost for the index procedure. Further research exploring the use of robotics in UKA with attention to patient outcomes and cost is crucial for defining its evolving role in orthopaedic surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 101652"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344125000391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Despite increased utilization of robotic assistance during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), its impact on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to compare rates of postoperative revision and complications among patients undergoing robotic-assisted UKA (RA-UKA) versus manual UKA.

Methods

A retrospective matched cohort study was performed. Trends analysis of the annual proportion of RA-UKA between 2010 and 2021 was performed, and RA-UKA patients (n = 3976) were matched 1:3 with manual UKA patients (n = 11,766) across age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and comorbidities. Rates of 2-year prosthesis-related complications were compared between the matched cohorts using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

The annual proportion of UKA procedures performed with robotic assistance trended significantly upward (1.51% to 5.19%, P < .001). Within 2 years postoperatively, the RA-UKA cohort exhibited significantly lower rates of aseptic revision (1.84% vs 2.37%; odds ratio: 0.76; P = .040) and aseptic loosening (0.13% vs 0.42%; odds ratio: 0.32; P = .010). Total cost for the index UKA was significantly higher for the RA-UKA cohort ($10,321 vs $7,366; P < .001).

Conclusions

There has been a marked increase in utilization of RA-UKA. Compared to matched manual UKA, RA-UKA had lower rates of revision and aseptic loosening at 2-year follow-up, but at a higher total cost for the index procedure. Further research exploring the use of robotics in UKA with attention to patient outcomes and cost is crucial for defining its evolving role in orthopaedic surgery.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人辅助的单腔膝关节置换术与人工单腔膝关节置换术相比是否降低了翻修率？最新的匹配队列分析

背景：尽管在单室膝关节置换术（UKA）中机器人辅助的使用越来越多，但其对术后结果的影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较机器人辅助UKA （RA-UKA）与手动UKA患者的术后修复率和并发症。方法采用回顾性匹配队列研究。对2010 - 2021年RA-UKA年度比例进行趋势分析，将RA-UKA患者（n = 3976）与手工UKA患者（n = 11766）按年龄、性别、Elixhauser合并症指数和合并症进行1:3匹配。采用多变量logistic回归比较两组患者2年假体相关并发症的发生率。结果在机器人辅助下进行的UKA手术的年比例呈显著上升趋势（1.51% ~ 5.19%）；措施)。术后2年内，RA-UKA组的无菌翻修率明显较低(1.84% vs 2.37%；优势比：0.76；P = 0.040)和无菌性松动(0.13% vs 0.42%；优势比：0.32；P = .010)。在RA-UKA队列中，UKA指数的总成本明显更高(10,321美元vs 7,366美元；P & lt;措施)。结论RA-UKA的使用率有了明显的提高。与匹配的手动UKA相比，RA-UKA在2年随访时的翻修率和无菌性松动率较低，但指数手术的总成本较高。进一步研究探索机器人在UKA的应用，关注患者的预后和成本，对于确定其在骨科手术中的发展作用至关重要。

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

Arthroplasty Today Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

258

审稿时长

40 weeks

期刊介绍： Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.