Robotic-Arm-Assisted vs Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The 2-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis has potential benefits over total knee arthroplasty but UKA has a higher revision rate. Robotic-assisted UKA is increasingly common and offers more accurate implant positioning and limb alignment, lower early postoperative pain but evidence of functional outcome is lacking. The aim was to assess the clinical outcomes of a single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial, comparing robotic-arm-assisted UKA with conventional surgery. METHODS: A total of 139 participants were recruited and underwent robotic-arm-assisted (fixed bearing) or conventional (mobile bearing) UKA. Fifty-eight patients in the robotic-arm-assisted group and 54 in the manual group at 2 years. The main outcome measures were the Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Score and revision rate. RESULTS: At 2 years, there were no significant differences for any of the outcome measures. Sub-group analysis (n = 35) of participants with a preoperative University of California Los Angeles Activity Scale >5 (more active) was performed. In this sub-group, the median Oxford Knee Score at 2 years was 46 (IQR 42.0-48.0) for robotic-arm-assisted and 41 (IQR 38.5-44.0) for the manual group (P = .036). The median American Knee Society Score was 193.5 (IQR 184.0-198.0) for the robotic-arm-assisted group and 174.0 (IQR 166.0-188.5) for the manual group (P = .017). Survivorship was 100% in robotic-arm-assisted group and 96.3% in the manual group. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants achieved an outcome equivalent to the most widely implanted UKA in the United Kingdom. Sub-group analysis suggests that more active patients may benefit from robotic-arm- assisted surgery. Long term follow-up is required to evaluate differences in survivorship.

Cost-utility analysis of robotic arm-assisted medial compartment knee arthroplasty.

Aims: To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA). Methods: This was a five-year follow-up study of patients who were randomized to rUKA (n = 64) or mUKA (n = 65). Patients completed the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) preoperatively, and at three months and one, two, and five years postoperatively, which was used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs for the primary and additional surgery and healthcare costs were calculated. Results: rUKA was associated with a relative 0.012 QALY gain at five years, which was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 for a unit undertaking 400 cases per year. A cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved when ≥ 300 cases were performed per year. However, on removal of the cost for a revision for presumed infection (mUKA group, n = 1) the cost per QALY was greater than £38,000, which was in part due to the increased intraoperative consumable costs associated with rUKA (£626 per patient). When the absolute cost difference (operative and revision costs) was less than £240, a cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved. On removing the cost of the revision for infection, rUKA was cost-neutral when more than 900 cases per year were undertaken and when the consumable costs were zero. Conclusion: rUKA was a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 at five years, however when removing the revision for presumed infection, which was arguably a random event, this was no longer the case. The absolute cost difference had to be less than £240 to be cost-effective, which could be achieved by reducing the perioperative costs of rUKA or if there were increased revision costs associated with mUKA with longer follow-up.

Satisfaction and functional outcome with "self-care" for the management of fifth metacarpal fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fifth metacarpal fractures are common and comprise a significant proportion of traditional orthopaedic fracture clinic workload. We reviewed the functional outcome and the satisfaction of patients managed with a new protocol that promoted "self-care" and resulted in the discharge of most of these patients from the emergency department with no further follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients discharged with a fifth metacarpal fracture between April 2012 to October 2012. A postal questionnaire was sent to each patient, followed by a telephone call. Patient-reported outcome measures (EQ-5D, QuickDASH) and patient satisfaction were assessed. Of the 167 patients eligible for the study, 5 were excluded. Of the remaining 162, 64 were uncontactable or declined to participate. The mean follow-up time was 21.6 months (SD 1.9, range 18.1 to 24.7). RESULTS: The median EQ-5D health index score was 0.87 (IQR 0.74 to 1.00), and the median QuickDASH score was 2.3 (IQR 0 to 6.8). Seventy-nine (80.6 %) patients were satisfied with the outcome of their injury, while 83 (84.9 %) reported being satisfied with the process. There was no difference between those with a fracture or those without a fracture in EQ-5D (p = 0.307) or QuickDASH (p = 0.820). CONCLUSION: Fifth metacarpal fractures can be managed effectively through an Emergency Department protocol without any formal orthopaedic follow-up. This pathway lead to excellent patient-reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction. This protocol has reduced unnecessary hospital attendances for patients and increased the time available for clinicians to deal with more challenging injuries.

Functional outcome and satisfaction with a "self-care" protocol for the management of mallet finger injuries: a case-series.

BACKGROUND: Mallet finger injuries are usually successfully treated non-operatively with a splint. Most patients are reviewed at least twice in a clinic after the initial presentation in A&E. A new protocol promoting "self-care" was introduced at our institution. Patients were provided with structured verbal and written information, and given access to a telephone helpline. METHODS: A prospective electronic patient record was used to identify all patients who presented to the emergency department with a mallet finger with a minimum six month follow-up. A satisfaction and patient reported outcome measure was administered via a postal questionnaire. The response rate was 36/47 (77%). RESULTS: The median QuickDASH score was 2.3 (IQR 0 to 4.6). All patients were satisfied with the treatment plan provided. Nine used the helpline and all were satisfied with information given. Although 13 patients reported some extensor lag, or bump, they had no functional limitation. Seven patients were reviewed by the general practitioner or other clinicians during their treatment period for issues such a skin care, splint size changes or sickness certification. Five were subsequently reviewed at the end of their treatment period in a clinic at their request, or their general practitioner, but did not require further surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Self-care for mallet finger injuries, with adequate patient information and telephone back-up, leads to acceptable functional results and satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.