Omer M Farhan-Alanie, James Doonan, Philip J Rowe, Matthew S Banger, Bryn G Jones, Angus D MacLean, Mark J G Blyth
{"title":"前瞻性，随机对照试验比较机械臂辅助双单室膝关节置换术与全膝关节置换术。","authors":"Omer M Farhan-Alanie, James Doonan, Philip J Rowe, Matthew S Banger, Bryn G Jones, Angus D MacLean, Mark J G Blyth","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery between robotic-arm assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) compared with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing bi-UKA and TKA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from 60 patients (27 bi-UKA and 33 TKA patients) 2 years following surgery, including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), New Knee Society Score (NKSS), Forgotten Joint Score, EQ-5D-3L, UCLA activity scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain and Stiffness Visual Analogue Scales, Satisfaction and Range of Motion. Complications were also recorded at each visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TKA and bi-UKA continue to offer comparable PROMs. The clinical NKSS demonstrated a significant difference between the two interventions, TKA 59.5 (37-65) versus bi-UKA 26.0 (22-40) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences shown between the interventions across all time points and remaining outcome measures (OKS at 2-year follow-up; TKA-42.0 [34.0-45.5] vs. bi-UKA-41.0 [28.0-45.0]) or the proportion of participant achieving bi-phasic gait at 2 years following surgery (p = 0.429). There was no difference in complication rates following surgery at 2 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA and mechanically aligned TKA offer similar clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery with no difference in complication rates. Further, follow-up is required to monitor patients as they enter mid/long-term follow-up and determine whether patients will gain long-term benefits from the cruciate-sparing bi-UKA approach.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I.</p>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Omer M Farhan-Alanie, James Doonan, Philip J Rowe, Matthew S Banger, Bryn G Jones, Angus D MacLean, Mark J G Blyth\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12644\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery between robotic-arm assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) compared with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing bi-UKA and TKA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from 60 patients (27 bi-UKA and 33 TKA patients) 2 years following surgery, including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), New Knee Society Score (NKSS), Forgotten Joint Score, EQ-5D-3L, UCLA activity scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain and Stiffness Visual Analogue Scales, Satisfaction and Range of Motion. Complications were also recorded at each visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TKA and bi-UKA continue to offer comparable PROMs. The clinical NKSS demonstrated a significant difference between the two interventions, TKA 59.5 (37-65) versus bi-UKA 26.0 (22-40) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences shown between the interventions across all time points and remaining outcome measures (OKS at 2-year follow-up; TKA-42.0 [34.0-45.5] vs. bi-UKA-41.0 [28.0-45.0]) or the proportion of participant achieving bi-phasic gait at 2 years following surgery (p = 0.429). There was no difference in complication rates following surgery at 2 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA and mechanically aligned TKA offer similar clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery with no difference in complication rates. Further, follow-up is required to monitor patients as they enter mid/long-term follow-up and determine whether patients will gain long-term benefits from the cruciate-sparing bi-UKA approach.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12644\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty.
Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery between robotic-arm assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) compared with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Methods: This is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing bi-UKA and TKA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from 60 patients (27 bi-UKA and 33 TKA patients) 2 years following surgery, including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), New Knee Society Score (NKSS), Forgotten Joint Score, EQ-5D-3L, UCLA activity scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain and Stiffness Visual Analogue Scales, Satisfaction and Range of Motion. Complications were also recorded at each visit.
Results: TKA and bi-UKA continue to offer comparable PROMs. The clinical NKSS demonstrated a significant difference between the two interventions, TKA 59.5 (37-65) versus bi-UKA 26.0 (22-40) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences shown between the interventions across all time points and remaining outcome measures (OKS at 2-year follow-up; TKA-42.0 [34.0-45.5] vs. bi-UKA-41.0 [28.0-45.0]) or the proportion of participant achieving bi-phasic gait at 2 years following surgery (p = 0.429). There was no difference in complication rates following surgery at 2 years.
Conclusion: Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA and mechanically aligned TKA offer similar clinical outcomes 2 years following surgery with no difference in complication rates. Further, follow-up is required to monitor patients as they enter mid/long-term follow-up and determine whether patients will gain long-term benefits from the cruciate-sparing bi-UKA approach.
期刊介绍：
Few other areas of orthopedic surgery and traumatology have undergone such a dramatic evolution in the last 10 years as knee surgery, arthroscopy and sports traumatology. Ranked among the top 33% of journals in both Orthopedics and Sports Sciences, the goal of this European journal is to publish papers about innovative knee surgery, sports trauma surgery and arthroscopy. Each issue features a series of peer-reviewed articles that deal with diagnosis and management and with basic research. Each issue also contains at least one review article about an important clinical problem. Case presentations or short notes about technical innovations are also accepted for publication.
The articles cover all aspects of knee surgery and all types of sports trauma; in addition, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention, and all types of arthroscopy (not only the knee but also the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, ankle, etc.) are addressed. Articles on new diagnostic techniques such as MRI and ultrasound and high-quality articles about the biomechanics of joints, muscles and tendons are included. Although this is largely a clinical journal, it is also open to basic research with clinical relevance.
Because the journal is supported by a distinguished European Editorial Board, assisted by an international Advisory Board, you can be assured that the journal maintains the highest standards.
Official Clinical Journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
