Robotic-assisted unicompartimental knee arthroplasty performed with Navio system: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty is a relatively modern concept, quickly arising in its use. The aim of this systematic review is to assess, according to the existing literature, which are the functional and clinical outcomes and component positioning and implant survivorship of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery performed using an image-free hand-held robotic system. Moreover, we analyzed whether there are significant differences and advantages compared to conventional surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review has been performed on studies published between 2004 and 2021, on the electronic library databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The inclusion criteria were all studies described as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed with the Navio robotic system. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, and 1,262 unicondylar knee arthroplasties were analyzed. These studies showed a satisfactory recovery of joint function, with a good range of motion (extension <5° and flexion which ranged from 105° to 130.3°) in patients of the NAVIO group. The revision rate was <2% while the infection rate <1%; no postoperative transfusion was needed in all UKA implanted. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a robotic tool for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) could lead to a better implant positioning and joint alignment than conventional surgery. There is still limited evidence to support that the use of this robot in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a greater survivorship than other systems or conventional techniques; therefore, a long-term follow-up is needed.

Treatment options for proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty: a single center experience.

OBJECTIVE: Proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) are gradually increasing and surgical management is often associated with high risk of complications, due to elderly population and associated comorbidities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 39 patients at least at 2-years follow-up. We identified two study groups, similar for demographic data. Group A included patients surgically treated without involving prosthetic implants, whereas Group B included patients in which an implant revision was performed. RESULTS: Data were recorded from January 2017 to February 2020, and 39 patients were included: 30 females (76.9%) and 9 males (23.1%), with a confirmed diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur. 23 (58.9%) patients were treated with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF), 12 (30.7%) with revision surgery and 4 (10.3%) were treated by modular megaprosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment options considered in the study, revision arthroplasty and internal fixation had shown no significant differences as a matter of clinical outcomes and postoperative complications.