Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: What are Patients' Perspectives, Understanding and Expectations?

BACKGROUND: The rate of using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has increased markedly. Understanding how patients view the role of robotics during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) informs shared decision making and facilitate efforts to appropriately educate patients regarding the risks and benefits of robotic assistance. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 440 potential TKA patients at the time of their surgery scheduling. Participants answered 25 questions regarding RA-TKA, socioeconomic factors, and their willingness to pay (WTP) for RA-TKA. Logistic regressions were used to determine if population characteristics and surgeon preferences influenced the patients' perceptions of RA-TKA. RESULTS: There were 39.7% of respondents who said that they had no knowledge regarding RA-TKA. Only 40.7% of participants had expressed a desire for RA-TKA to be used. There were 8.7% who were WTP extra for the use of RA-TKA. Participants believed that the main 3 benefits of RA-TKA compared to conventional methods were: more accurate implant placement (56.2%); better results (49.0%); and faster recovery (32.1%). The main 3 patient concerns were harm from malfunction (55.2%), reduced surgeon role in the procedure (48.1%), and lack of supportive research (28.3%). Surgeon preference of RA-TKA was associated with patient's willingness to have RA-TKA (odds ratio 4.60, confidence interval 2.98-7.81, P < .001), and with WTP extra for RA-TKA (odds ratio 2.05, confidence interval: 1.01-4.26, P = .049). CONCLUSION: Patient knowledge regarding RA-TKA is limited. Nonpeer-reviewed online information may make prospective TKA candidates vulnerable to misinformation and aggressive advertising. The challenge for orthopaedic surgeons is to re-establish control and reliably educate patients about the proven advantages and disadvantages of this emerging technology.

Construct length analysis of type B and C cervical and thoracolumbar fractures.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify if construct length affects the rate of surgical complications and instrumentation revision following surgical fixation of subaxial and thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. This study evaluates the effect of ankylosing spondylitis/diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (AS/DISH) within this population on outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review of 91 cervical and 89 thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. Groups were divided by construct length for analysis: short-segment (constructs spanning two or less segments adjacent to the fracture) and long-segment (constructs spanning more than two segments adjacent to the vertebral fracture). Results: For cervical fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.641), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.167), or kyphotic change (P = 0.994). For thoracolumbar fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.508), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.224), and kyphotic change (P = 0.278). Cervical Type B fractures were nonsignificantly more likely to have worsened kyphosis (P = 0.058) than Type C fractures. Assessing all regions of the spine, a diagnosis of AS/DISH was associated with an increase in kyphosis (P = 0.030) and a diagnosis of osteoporosis was associated with surgical hardware failure (P = 0.006). Conclusion: Patients with short-segment instrumentation have similar surgical outcomes and changes in kyphosis compared to those with long-segment instrumentation. A diagnosis of AS/DISH or osteoporosis was associated with worse surgical outcomes.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 3:1 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.

Does displacement of cervical and thoracolumbar dislocation-translation injuries predict spinal cord injury or recovery?

OBJECTIVE: For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the authors sought to 1) identify whether preoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of a complete spinal cord injury (SCI) and 2) identify whether preoperative or postoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of neurological improvement after surgical decompression. METHODS: All patients who underwent operative treatment for cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries at the authors' institution between 2006 and 2021 were identified. CT and MRI were utilized to measure vertebral column translation in millimeters prior to and after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to predict the probability of sustaining a complete SCI on the basis of the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation. ROC curves were then used to predict the probability of neurological recovery on the basis of preoperative and postoperative vertebral column translation. RESULTS: ROC analysis of 67 patients identified 6.10 mm (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77, 95% CI 0.650-0.892) of preoperative vertebral column translation as predictive of complete SCI. Additionally, ROC curve analysis found that 10.4 mm (AUC 0.654, 95% CI 0.421-0.887) of preoperative vertebral column translation was strongly predictive of no postoperative neurological improvement. Residual postoperative vertebral column translation after fracture reduction and instrumentation had no predictive value on neurological recovery (AUC 0.408, 95% CI 0.195-0.622). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation is highly predictive of complete SCI and the likelihood of postoperative neurological recovery.