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":"6 1","pages":"32"},"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
Conference Proceedings for the 10th Annual Meeting of Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA), 26th Annual Meeting of the Thai Hip and Knee Society (THKS), and the 16th Annual Meeting of the ASEAN Arthroplasty Association (AAA). DAIR for periprosthetic joint infections-One week to save the joint? The distribution of Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) phenotypes in the Malaysian population and their correlation with demographic variables. What is the clinical utility of acoustic and vibrational analyses in uncemented total hip arthroplasty? Nanoparticle ultrasonication: a promising approach for reducing bacterial biofilm in total joint infection-an in vivo rat model investigation.
×
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