RESUMO
Aims: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. Methods: The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Results: Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2 (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) has emerged as an alternative to improve the results of the conventional manual TKA (C-TKA). The aim of this study was to analyse the high-level studies comparing R-TKA and C-TKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, perioperative parameters, and complications. METHODS: The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 1 February 2023 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), written in English language, published in the last 15 years, focusing on the comparison of C-TKA and R-TKA results. The quality of each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2). The statistical analysis was carried out using random effects (DerSimonian & Laird) for weighted mean difference (MD) of the continuous variables and Peto method for odds ratios of the dichotomous variables. RESULTS: Among the 2905 articles retrieved, 14 RCTs on 12 series of patients treated with mechanically aligned implants were included. A total of 2255 patients (25.1% males and 74.9% females; mean age 62.9 ± 3.0; mean BMI 28.1 ± 1.3) were analysed. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that R-TKA did not provide overall superior results compared to C-TKA in mechanically aligned implants in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. R-TKA showed longer operative time (MD = 15.3 min, p = 0.004) and similar complication rates compared to C-TKA. A statistically significant difference in favour of R-TKA was found in the posterior-stabilized subgroup in terms of radiological outcomes (hip-knee-ankle angle MD = 1.7, p < 0.001) compared to C-TKA, although without resulting in appreciable difference of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: R-TKA did not provide overall superior results compared to C-TKA in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes, showing longer operative time and similar complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Functional alignment (FA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been introduced to restore the native joint line obliquity, respect the joint line height and minimize the need of soft tissue releases. The purpose of this study was to assess the intraoperative joint line alignment and compare it with the preoperative epiphyseal orientation of the femur and tibia in patients undergoing robotic-arm-assisted (RA)-TKA using FA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a consecutive series of patients undergoing RA-TKA between February 2019 and February 2021. The joint line orientation of the femur and tibia in the three-dimensions was calculated and classified on preoperative CT-scans and compared with the intraoperative implant alignment. The tibial cut was performed according to the tibial preoperative anatomy. The femoral cuts were fine-tuned based on tensioned soft tissues, aiming for balanced medial and lateral gaps in flexion and extension. RESULTS: A total of 115 RA-TKAs were assessed. On average, the tibial component was placed at 1.8° varus (SD 1.3), while the femur was placed at 0.8° valgus (SD 2.2) and 0.6° external rotation (SD 2.6) relative to the surgical transepicondylar axis. Moderate to strong, statistically significant relationships were described between preoperative tibial coronal alignment and tibial cut orientation (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001), preoperative femoral orientation in the coronal and axial planes and intraoperative femoral cuts alignment (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.5, p < 0.0001, respectively). One case (0.9%) of slight tibial component varus subsidence was reported 45-days post-operatively, but implant revision was not necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed robotic-assisted functional technique for TKA alignment, with a restricted tibial component coronal alignment, based on the preoperative phenotype and femoral component positioning as dictated by the soft tissues, provided joint line respecting resections. Further studies are needed to assess long-term implant survivorship, patient satisfaction and alignment-related failures.
Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Prótese do Joelho , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Braço , Fêmur/diagnóstico por imagem , Fêmur/cirurgia , Humanos , Articulação do Joelho/diagnóstico por imagem , Articulação do Joelho/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Tíbia/diagnóstico por imagem , Tíbia/cirurgiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: Computer-assisted systems (CAS) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were expected to result in more accurate prosthesis implantation, better patient outcomes, and longer implant survival when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI). The aim of this study was to compare two groups of patients operated using CAS or CI at ten years follow-up. METHODS: One hundred twenty TKA patients, 60 using CAS and 60 using CI, were contacted after a decade for follow-up. Eligible patients received radiological examination to assess the lower-limb mechanical axis. They were also clinically assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Knee Society Score for Knee (KSS-K) and Function (KSS-F) Scoring. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess revisions, not for post-traumatic reasons. RESULTS: In CAS and CI groups, the lower-limb mechanical axis was 1.7° ± 2.4° and 1.5° ± 2.8°, respectively; corresponding KOOS values were 82.3 ± 14.3 and 78.6 ± 14.4; KSS-K values were 85.9 ± 11.1 and 85.0 ± 9.7; KSS-F values were 82.2 ± 19.3 and 83.8 ± 18. For these assessments, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Two CAS (3.8%) and three CI patients (5.7%) were revised. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found at long-term follow-up in terms of radiographical-clinical outcomes and of implant survival between TKA operated using CAS or CI.
Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Articulação do Joelho/cirurgia , Cirurgia Assistida por Computador , Seguimentos , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Articulação do Joelho/diagnóstico por imagem , Radiografia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This study tried to ascertain (1) the accuracy of synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip and knee infections, (2) which test yielded superior test performance, and (3) the influence on diagnostic accuracy of study characteristics such as patient number, study design, study level, anatomic site, and threshold value. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted including papers assessing more effective cutoffs for synovial fluid tests, having comparative design, evaluating an exclusive cohort of hip or knee prostheses, including a clear definition of infected cases, and reporting sufficient data for the calculation of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative. RESULTS: A total of 375 articles were collected and, given the inclusion criteria, ten manuscripts were included. These studies assessed 1155 hip prostheses (276 infected cases) and 1235 knee prostheses (401 infected cases). The specificity of synovial fluid white blood cell count was significantly increased by using the threshold value ≥ 3000 cell/µL (p = 0.006); the sensitivity of polymorphonucleate percentage was significantly higher in detecting knee infections (p = 0.034). DISCUSSION: Both tests had a high specificity and sensitivity in detecting periprosthetic joint infections, and no clear superiority of one over the other existed. Furthermore, cutoff and anatomic site significantly influenced synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage, respectively. CONCLUSION: Synovial fluid analysis is adequate in differentiating patients with periprosthetic hip and knee infections. Our data confirms international guidelines suggesting the use of 3000 cell/µL as cutoff threshold for synovial fluid white blood cell count. Since an anatomic site effect has been demonstrated, the goal of future studies will be to identify different cutoffs for hip and knee prostheses.