No evidence of mid-flexion instability after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty as assessed by intraoperative pressure sensors.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Arthroplasty Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1186/s42836-024-00253-3
Mateo Armendariz, Baha John Tadros, Dermot Collopy, Gavin Clark
{"title":"No evidence of mid-flexion instability after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty as assessed by intraoperative pressure sensors.","authors":"Mateo Armendariz, Baha John Tadros, Dermot Collopy, Gavin Clark","doi":"10.1186/s42836-024-00253-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Mid-flexion instability has been identified as a cause for dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Robotic-assisted surgery using the Mako robot only allows for assessment of stability at 10° and 90°. This study aimed to investigate any evidence of mid-flexion instability in Mako-assisted TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 72 TKA in 59 patients from 2018 to 2022 were collected. All patients underwent an RA (Mako, Stryker, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA), single-radius design, cruciate-retaining TKA. Intraoperatively, medial, and lateral pressures were measured at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion using a pressure sensor (Verasense, OrthoSensor, 59 Inc., Dania Beach, FL, USA). The knee was considered balanced if the difference in pressures between compartments was less than 15 pounds-force (lbf).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the pressures measured in the medial compartment at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion (P = 0.696). A statistically significant difference was found between the pressures measured in the lateral compartment at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion, with the 10° value being significantly higher (P < 0.001), but this did not exceed the threshold of 15 lbf. None of the patients had a pressure difference of more than 15 lbf when pressures at 45° were compared to that at 10° and 90°, medially or laterally.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed no evidence of mid-flexion instability in Mako-assisted TKA, using a single radius, cruciate-retaining prosthesis whilst maintaining the joint height.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III retrospective cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215822/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00253-3","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

Abstract

Purpose: Mid-flexion instability has been identified as a cause for dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Robotic-assisted surgery using the Mako robot only allows for assessment of stability at 10° and 90°. This study aimed to investigate any evidence of mid-flexion instability in Mako-assisted TKA.

Methods: Data from 72 TKA in 59 patients from 2018 to 2022 were collected. All patients underwent an RA (Mako, Stryker, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA), single-radius design, cruciate-retaining TKA. Intraoperatively, medial, and lateral pressures were measured at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion using a pressure sensor (Verasense, OrthoSensor, 59 Inc., Dania Beach, FL, USA). The knee was considered balanced if the difference in pressures between compartments was less than 15 pounds-force (lbf).

Results: There was no significant difference between the pressures measured in the medial compartment at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion (P = 0.696). A statistically significant difference was found between the pressures measured in the lateral compartment at 10°, 45° and 90° of flexion, with the 10° value being significantly higher (P < 0.001), but this did not exceed the threshold of 15 lbf. None of the patients had a pressure difference of more than 15 lbf when pressures at 45° were compared to that at 10° and 90°, medially or laterally.

Conclusion: This study showed no evidence of mid-flexion instability in Mako-assisted TKA, using a single radius, cruciate-retaining prosthesis whilst maintaining the joint height.

Level of evidence: Level III retrospective cohort study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据术中压力传感器的评估,机器人辅助全膝关节置换术后没有中屈不稳的迹象。
目的:中屈不稳定性已被确认为全膝关节置换术(TKA)后不满意的一个原因。使用 Mako 机器人进行的机器人辅助手术只能评估 10° 和 90° 的稳定性。本研究旨在调查Mako辅助TKA中屈曲不稳定性的任何证据:收集了2018年至2022年59名患者的72例TKA数据。所有患者均接受了RA(Mako,史赛克,劳德代尔堡,佛罗里达州,美国)、单弧度设计、十字韧带固定的TKA。术中使用压力传感器(Verasense,OrthoSensor,59 Inc.,Dania Beach,FL,USA)测量屈曲 10°、45° 和 90°时的内侧和外侧压力。如果不同部位的压力差小于 15 磅力(lbf),则认为膝关节是平衡的:结果:在屈曲 10°、45° 和 90°时,内侧隔间测得的压力无明显差异(P = 0.696)。外侧间室在屈曲 10°、45° 和 90°时测得的压力之间存在明显差异(P=0.696),其中 10°时的压力值明显更高(P=0.696):该研究表明,在使用单桡骨十字韧带固定假体并保持关节高度的情况下,没有证据表明Mako辅助TKA存在中屈曲不稳定性:证据等级:三级回顾性队列研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
A 10-point preoperative checklist: selecting patients for outpatient joint replacement surgery. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of three superficial skin closure methods for multi-layer wound closure in total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Conversion of UKA to TKA using identical standard implants-How does it compare to primary UKA, primary TKA and revision TKA? Reliability of pre-resection ligament tension assessment in imageless robotic assisted total knee replacement. Should we be concerned when the anterior approach to the hip goes accidentally medial? A retrospective study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1