Zi Qiang Glen Liau, Wai Keong Ryan Loke, Danakkrisna Vachalam S/O Rangasamie, Yu Liu
{"title":"机器人全膝关节置换术中新颖的全切口内针置入技术:一种更安全的替代方法。","authors":"Zi Qiang Glen Liau, Wai Keong Ryan Loke, Danakkrisna Vachalam S/O Rangasamie, Yu Liu","doi":"10.1186/s42836-025-00329-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Major robotic systems for total knee replacements necessitate the use of array pins in the tibia and femur. These extra-incisional pins are placed away from the primary incision and may be associated with soft tissue complications and peri-prosthetic fractures. There is currently no standardized, reproducible method for reliably placing pins in the femur and tibia metaphyses. We have developed an all-intra-incisional pin method within the primary incision. This paper aims to describe our technique, analyse the proximity of the pins to the implants, and study complications arising from both techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 102 robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties were performed using the ROSA, MAKO, and CORI systems. Patient charts were reviewed for their age, gender, body mass index, and ethnicity. Post-operative day zero radiographs of the operated knee were used for measurements in anteroposterior and lateral views, with X-ray magnifications taken into consideration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study demonstrates that intra-incisional pins can be placed 6.52 times closer to the tibial implant compared to extra-incisional pins on the anteroposterior X-ray view radiographs, with no observed significant difference between the complication rates. In anteroposterior view, it allows placement of tibia pins within 8.99 ± 1.21 mm (95% CI: 7.78, 10.2) of the tibial implant, within 5.93 ± 1.29 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.22) of the tibia-reamed-surface, and placement of the femoral pins within 6.01 ± 1.37 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.37) of the femoral implant. In the lateral X-ray view, it enables the placement of tibial pins within 9.40 ± 1.43 mm (95% CI: 7.97, 10.8) of the implant. Univariate analysis reveals that our technique and pin-distance from the implants are not influenced by patient demographics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study has demonstrated that our technique is precise, not affected by patients' demographics, and eliminates the need for pin repositioning, potentially reducing the incidence of pin-site complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":"7 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12403252/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel all-intra-incisional pin placement technique in robotic total knee arthroplasty: a safer alternative.\",\"authors\":\"Zi Qiang Glen Liau, Wai Keong Ryan Loke, Danakkrisna Vachalam S/O Rangasamie, Yu Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42836-025-00329-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Major robotic systems for total knee replacements necessitate the use of array pins in the tibia and femur. These extra-incisional pins are placed away from the primary incision and may be associated with soft tissue complications and peri-prosthetic fractures. There is currently no standardized, reproducible method for reliably placing pins in the femur and tibia metaphyses. We have developed an all-intra-incisional pin method within the primary incision. This paper aims to describe our technique, analyse the proximity of the pins to the implants, and study complications arising from both techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 102 robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties were performed using the ROSA, MAKO, and CORI systems. Patient charts were reviewed for their age, gender, body mass index, and ethnicity. Post-operative day zero radiographs of the operated knee were used for measurements in anteroposterior and lateral views, with X-ray magnifications taken into consideration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study demonstrates that intra-incisional pins can be placed 6.52 times closer to the tibial implant compared to extra-incisional pins on the anteroposterior X-ray view radiographs, with no observed significant difference between the complication rates. In anteroposterior view, it allows placement of tibia pins within 8.99 ± 1.21 mm (95% CI: 7.78, 10.2) of the tibial implant, within 5.93 ± 1.29 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.22) of the tibia-reamed-surface, and placement of the femoral pins within 6.01 ± 1.37 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.37) of the femoral implant. In the lateral X-ray view, it enables the placement of tibial pins within 9.40 ± 1.43 mm (95% CI: 7.97, 10.8) of the implant. Univariate analysis reveals that our technique and pin-distance from the implants are not influenced by patient demographics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study has demonstrated that our technique is precise, not affected by patients' demographics, and eliminates the need for pin repositioning, potentially reducing the incidence of pin-site complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12403252/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-025-00329-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-025-00329-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:全膝关节置换术的主要机器人系统需要在胫骨和股骨中使用阵列销钉。这些切口外钉放置在远离原始切口的地方,可能与软组织并发症和假体周围骨折有关。目前还没有标准化的、可重复的方法来可靠地在股骨和胫骨外胫内放置针。我们开发了一种在初级切口内的全切口内针法。本文旨在描述我们的技术,分析引脚与植入物的接近程度,并研究两种技术引起的并发症。方法:采用ROSA、MAKO和CORI系统共进行102例机器人辅助全膝关节置换术。回顾了患者的年龄、性别、体重指数和种族。术后第0天手术膝关节的x线片用于测量正位和侧位视图,并考虑x线放大。结果:我们的研究表明,在正位x线片上,切口内钉比切口外钉离胫骨种植体更近6.52倍,并发症发生率无明显差异。在正位视图中,胫骨钉可放置在胫骨植入物的8.99±1.21 mm (95% CI: 7.78, 10.2)内,胫骨扩孔面5.93±1.29 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.22)内,股骨钉可放置在股骨植入物的6.01±1.37 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.37)内。在侧位x线视图中,它可以在植入物的9.40±1.43 mm (95% CI: 7.97, 10.8)内放置胫骨钉。单变量分析显示,我们的技术和针距植入物不受患者人口统计学的影响。结论:我们的研究表明,我们的技术是精确的,不受患者人口统计学的影响,并且消除了针重新定位的需要,潜在地减少了针部位并发症的发生率。
Novel all-intra-incisional pin placement technique in robotic total knee arthroplasty: a safer alternative.
Introduction: Major robotic systems for total knee replacements necessitate the use of array pins in the tibia and femur. These extra-incisional pins are placed away from the primary incision and may be associated with soft tissue complications and peri-prosthetic fractures. There is currently no standardized, reproducible method for reliably placing pins in the femur and tibia metaphyses. We have developed an all-intra-incisional pin method within the primary incision. This paper aims to describe our technique, analyse the proximity of the pins to the implants, and study complications arising from both techniques.
Methods: A total of 102 robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties were performed using the ROSA, MAKO, and CORI systems. Patient charts were reviewed for their age, gender, body mass index, and ethnicity. Post-operative day zero radiographs of the operated knee were used for measurements in anteroposterior and lateral views, with X-ray magnifications taken into consideration.
Results: Our study demonstrates that intra-incisional pins can be placed 6.52 times closer to the tibial implant compared to extra-incisional pins on the anteroposterior X-ray view radiographs, with no observed significant difference between the complication rates. In anteroposterior view, it allows placement of tibia pins within 8.99 ± 1.21 mm (95% CI: 7.78, 10.2) of the tibial implant, within 5.93 ± 1.29 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.22) of the tibia-reamed-surface, and placement of the femoral pins within 6.01 ± 1.37 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.37) of the femoral implant. In the lateral X-ray view, it enables the placement of tibial pins within 9.40 ± 1.43 mm (95% CI: 7.97, 10.8) of the implant. Univariate analysis reveals that our technique and pin-distance from the implants are not influenced by patient demographics.
Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated that our technique is precise, not affected by patients' demographics, and eliminates the need for pin repositioning, potentially reducing the incidence of pin-site complications.