Robotic Assistance in Simultaneous Bilateral Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 126 Knees Demonstrating Enhanced Radiographic Accuracy and Comparable Safety to Conventional Methods
{"title":"Robotic Assistance in Simultaneous Bilateral Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 126 Knees Demonstrating Enhanced Radiographic Accuracy and Comparable Safety to Conventional Methods","authors":"Valentina Rossi MD , Constant Foissey MD , Andreas Fontalis MD, MSc, MRCS , Gabriel Gaggiotti MD , Stefano Gaggiotti MD , Elvire Servien MD, PhD , Sébastien Lustig MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>One-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BUKA) is a promising option for patients with bilateral medial knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to compare the safety, early clinical and functional outcomes, and radiological results of conventional vs robotic-assisted medial BUKA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who underwent medial BUKA as a single-stage procedure between April 2016 and January 2022. The study included both conventional (36 procedures) and robotic-assisted techniques (90 procedures) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Conventional procedures were performed either simultaneously by two surgical teams or sequentially by one team. Robotic procedures were exclusively performed sequentially by a single team. Data on surgical outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (International Knee Society score), and radiographic measurements were collected.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the 63 patients analyzed, robotic-assisted procedures took significantly longer (115 ± 22 minutes) compared to conventional approaches (86.9 ± 12 minutes; <em>P</em> < .0001). No significant differences were observed in complications, length of hospital stay, rehospitalizations, patient-reported outcome measures, or overall clinical outcomes. However, radiographic analysis showed superior joint line restoration in the robotic group (−0.2 ± 0.7 mm vs −1.4 ± 1.35 mm, <em>P</em> = .03) and better tibial implant varus control (0.3° ± 0.6 vs 1° ± 1.8 degrees, <em>P</em> = .03).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While robotic-assisted BUKA resulted in longer operative times, clinical outcomes were comparable. Radiographic findings indicated improved implant positioning, suggesting potential benefits in implantation accuracy that warrant further research.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>IV.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"31 ","pages":"Article 101594"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
One-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BUKA) is a promising option for patients with bilateral medial knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to compare the safety, early clinical and functional outcomes, and radiological results of conventional vs robotic-assisted medial BUKA.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who underwent medial BUKA as a single-stage procedure between April 2016 and January 2022. The study included both conventional (36 procedures) and robotic-assisted techniques (90 procedures) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Conventional procedures were performed either simultaneously by two surgical teams or sequentially by one team. Robotic procedures were exclusively performed sequentially by a single team. Data on surgical outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (International Knee Society score), and radiographic measurements were collected.
Results
Among the 63 patients analyzed, robotic-assisted procedures took significantly longer (115 ± 22 minutes) compared to conventional approaches (86.9 ± 12 minutes; P < .0001). No significant differences were observed in complications, length of hospital stay, rehospitalizations, patient-reported outcome measures, or overall clinical outcomes. However, radiographic analysis showed superior joint line restoration in the robotic group (−0.2 ± 0.7 mm vs −1.4 ± 1.35 mm, P = .03) and better tibial implant varus control (0.3° ± 0.6 vs 1° ± 1.8 degrees, P = .03).
Conclusions
While robotic-assisted BUKA resulted in longer operative times, clinical outcomes were comparable. Radiographic findings indicated improved implant positioning, suggesting potential benefits in implantation accuracy that warrant further research.
背景:一期双侧单室膝关节置换术(BUKA)是治疗双侧内侧膝骨关节炎的一种很有前途的选择。本研究旨在比较传统与机器人辅助的医疗BUKA的安全性、早期临床和功能结果以及放射学结果。方法:对2016年4月至2022年1月期间接受内侧BUKA单期手术的患者进行回顾性队列研究。该研究包括常规手术(36例)和机器人辅助技术(90例),随访时间至少为6个月。常规手术可以由两个手术小组同时进行,也可以由一个手术小组依次进行。机器人程序完全由一个团队按顺序执行。收集了手术结果、患者报告的结果测量(国际膝关节协会评分)和放射测量的数据。结果:在分析的63例患者中,与传统方法(86.9±12分钟)相比,机器人辅助手术所需时间明显更长(115±22分钟);P < 0.0001)。在并发症、住院时间、再住院、患者报告的结果测量或总体临床结果方面没有观察到显著差异。然而,x线分析显示机器人组的关节线恢复较好(-0.2±0.7 mm vs -1.4±1.35 mm, P = 0.03),胫骨内翻控制较好(0.3°±0.6 vs 1°±1.8度,P = 0.03)。结论:虽然机器人辅助BUKA导致更长的手术时间,但临床结果是可比的。x线检查结果表明,种植体定位改善,表明种植精度的潜在益处值得进一步研究。证据等级:四级。
期刊介绍:
Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.