M. J. Markel, Caleb V. Grieme, Paulina Szakiel, Nijo Abraham, Paolo Rigor, Xue Geng, Ji Won Lee, H. Boucher
{"title":"机器人辅助、定制和常规全膝关节置换术操作率的比较:一项回顾性队列研究","authors":"M. J. Markel, Caleb V. Grieme, Paulina Szakiel, Nijo Abraham, Paolo Rigor, Xue Geng, Ji Won Lee, H. Boucher","doi":"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: With projected increases in total knee arthroplasties (TKA), patient outcomes without complications are essential. Arthrofibrosis, a potential complication after TKA that may impact long-term patient outcome, may be remedied by manipulation under anesthesia (MUA); however, it is not risk-free. This study investigated the association between manipulation and newer implants and sophisticated techniques, which hold promise for preventing arthrofibrosis and improving patient outcomes. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed 1260 primary knee arthroplasty cases (717 conventional, 217 customized, and 326 robot-assisted) performed by an orthopaedic surgeon from January 1, 2016 to May 31, 2020. Patient records were reviewed for manipulation and demographics (type of implant, sex, body mass index [BMI], smoking status, and prior surgery). Results: Overall manipulation rate was 1.3% (n=17). Manipulation rates for conventional customized and robot-assisted TKAs did not vary significantly (1.84%, n=6; 0.46%, n=1; 1.39%, n=10, respectively; P=0.466). Multivariable logistic regression showed no statistically significant difference in the odds of manipulation depending on the type of implant. However, those who smoked were 4 times more likely to have a manipulation (OR: 4.187, 95% CI: 1.119 to 15.673) when controlling for covariates (type of implant, sex, BMI, and prior surgery). Additionally, those with prior surgery were 2.8 times as likely to have a manipulation (OR: 2.808, 95% CI: 1.039 to 7.589) when controlling for covariates. Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in manipulation rates among conventional, customized, and robot-assisted TKAs. However, current smoking status and prior surgery were associated with higher risk of manipulation. Level of Evidence: Level III.","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"33 1","pages":"565 - 570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of manipulation rates for robot-assisted, customized, and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study\",\"authors\":\"M. J. Markel, Caleb V. Grieme, Paulina Szakiel, Nijo Abraham, Paolo Rigor, Xue Geng, Ji Won Lee, H. Boucher\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: With projected increases in total knee arthroplasties (TKA), patient outcomes without complications are essential. Arthrofibrosis, a potential complication after TKA that may impact long-term patient outcome, may be remedied by manipulation under anesthesia (MUA); however, it is not risk-free. This study investigated the association between manipulation and newer implants and sophisticated techniques, which hold promise for preventing arthrofibrosis and improving patient outcomes. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed 1260 primary knee arthroplasty cases (717 conventional, 217 customized, and 326 robot-assisted) performed by an orthopaedic surgeon from January 1, 2016 to May 31, 2020. Patient records were reviewed for manipulation and demographics (type of implant, sex, body mass index [BMI], smoking status, and prior surgery). Results: Overall manipulation rate was 1.3% (n=17). Manipulation rates for conventional customized and robot-assisted TKAs did not vary significantly (1.84%, n=6; 0.46%, n=1; 1.39%, n=10, respectively; P=0.466). Multivariable logistic regression showed no statistically significant difference in the odds of manipulation depending on the type of implant. However, those who smoked were 4 times more likely to have a manipulation (OR: 4.187, 95% CI: 1.119 to 15.673) when controlling for covariates (type of implant, sex, BMI, and prior surgery). Additionally, those with prior surgery were 2.8 times as likely to have a manipulation (OR: 2.808, 95% CI: 1.039 to 7.589) when controlling for covariates. Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in manipulation rates among conventional, customized, and robot-assisted TKAs. However, current smoking status and prior surgery were associated with higher risk of manipulation. Level of Evidence: Level III.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"565 - 570\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001176\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of manipulation rates for robot-assisted, customized, and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study
Background: With projected increases in total knee arthroplasties (TKA), patient outcomes without complications are essential. Arthrofibrosis, a potential complication after TKA that may impact long-term patient outcome, may be remedied by manipulation under anesthesia (MUA); however, it is not risk-free. This study investigated the association between manipulation and newer implants and sophisticated techniques, which hold promise for preventing arthrofibrosis and improving patient outcomes. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed 1260 primary knee arthroplasty cases (717 conventional, 217 customized, and 326 robot-assisted) performed by an orthopaedic surgeon from January 1, 2016 to May 31, 2020. Patient records were reviewed for manipulation and demographics (type of implant, sex, body mass index [BMI], smoking status, and prior surgery). Results: Overall manipulation rate was 1.3% (n=17). Manipulation rates for conventional customized and robot-assisted TKAs did not vary significantly (1.84%, n=6; 0.46%, n=1; 1.39%, n=10, respectively; P=0.466). Multivariable logistic regression showed no statistically significant difference in the odds of manipulation depending on the type of implant. However, those who smoked were 4 times more likely to have a manipulation (OR: 4.187, 95% CI: 1.119 to 15.673) when controlling for covariates (type of implant, sex, BMI, and prior surgery). Additionally, those with prior surgery were 2.8 times as likely to have a manipulation (OR: 2.808, 95% CI: 1.039 to 7.589) when controlling for covariates. Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in manipulation rates among conventional, customized, and robot-assisted TKAs. However, current smoking status and prior surgery were associated with higher risk of manipulation. Level of Evidence: Level III.
期刊介绍:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.