RESUMO
There is relative paucity in the literature concerning outcomes after robotic-assisted Patellofemoral Arthroplasty (PFA). The aims were (1) to evaluate outcomes in patients undergoing PFA with inlay or onlay components, with or without robotic arm assistance and (2) to identify risk factors of poor outcomes after PFA. This retrospective study included 77 PFA for isolated patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis, assigned to three groups (18 conventional technique, 17 image-free robotic-assisted system and 42 image-based robotic-assisted system). The demographic data were comparable between the three groups. The clinical outcomes assessed were: Visual Analogue Scale, Knee Society Score, Kujala score and satisfaction rate. The radiological measures were: Caton Deschamps index, patellar tilt and frontal alignment of the trochlea. Functional outcomes, satisfaction rate and residual pain were comparable between the three groups. Patellar tilt improvement was superior when a robotic device was used (either image-based or image-free) compared to the conventional technique. There were three revisions (3.9%) at the last follow-up related to femorotibial osteoarthritis progression. Multivariate analysis found no significant risk factors for poor outcomes, with respect to the surgical technique or implant design. Functional outcomes and revisions rate after PFA were comparable between the surgical techniques and implants. Robotic-assisted systems were associated with a superior improvement of the patellar tilt compared to the conventional technique.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although considerable literature can be found on the outcome of total ankle replacement (TAR), only a few studies have reported the results of the fixed-bearing Cadence prosthesis. This noninventor study reports a consecutive series of 60 Cadence TAR systems with a mean of 2.9 years' follow-up, focusing on clinical and radiographic outcomes and early complications. This study is the first to assess true postoperative radiographic ankle prosthesis range of motion (ROM) and to report an unanticipated serious adverse device effect. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent primary TAR with the Cadence prosthesis between July 2016 and July 2019 were clinically and radiographically evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up after the procedure. Revisions, additional procedures, implant failure, and complications were reported according to the classifications of Vander Griend and Glazebrook. Radiographic outcomes included radiographic TAR ROM, bone-implant interface, and alignment parameters. RESULTS: The survival rate of the prosthesis was 98.3%. The mean radiographic ankle ROM at the last follow-up was 24 degrees (9 degrees of dorsiflexion and 15 degrees of plantarflexion). The coronal and sagittal alignment of TAR was 90.8 degrees and 3.9 degrees, respectively. Bone-implant interface analysis revealed osteolysis in 9 ankles (15%) and radiolucent lines in 33 ankles (55%) occurring at both component interfaces. Intraoperative complications were 3 periprosthetic malleolar fractures (5%). Five talar implant fractures (implant failure of 8.3%) were observed, and 1 unexplained persistent pain that required a conversion from TAR to a tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. CONCLUSION: Clinical, radiograph ROM, implant position outcomes, and survival rate at an early-term follow-up of 2.9 years were similar to those reported in recent Cadence studies. However, this study reports 5 unanticipated talar implant fractures and a high rate of posterior radiolucent lines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.