Different intraoperative joint laxity patterns do not impact clinical outcomes in robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee replacement with 1-to-1 surface reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted technology in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) allows for customized adjustments of joint laxity through virtual preoperative component positioning before bone preparation. Nevertheless, the optimal balancing curve has yet to be delineated. This study sought to investigate if varying intraoperative knee laxity patterns had any impact on postoperative patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on prospectively collected data from 326 fixed-bearing RAUKA procedures performed between 2018 and 2022 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were categorized into three cohorts based on intraoperative joint laxity patterns (millimetres of joint gap during valgus stress) imparted at 20°, 60°, 90° and 120° of knee flexion: cohort 1 < +0.5 mm (tight); cohort 2 between 0.6 and 1.9 mm (physiologic); cohort 3 > 2 mm (loose). Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to assess patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) improvements and preoperative and postoperative differences across the cohorts. A Spearman's test evaluated the correlation between knee balance at all degrees of flexion and preoperative and postoperative HKA. RESULTS: No differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were identified across the cohorts (p > 0.05). All three cohorts with different joint laxity patterns showed a significant improvement in the postoperative PROMS (p < 0.05). The preoperative or postoperative limb alignment did not significantly affect clinical outcomes relative to different laxity patterns. CONCLUSION: No differences were found in the outcomes across different joint laxity patterns in robotic-assisted medial UKA using fixed-bearing mUKAs. There was no evident advantage for maintaining a closer to physiologic laxity compared to tighter or looser balancing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III therapeutic study.

[The combination of partial knee arthroplasties in knee osteoarthritis with an intact anterior cruciate ligament - a future model?] / Kombination von Knieteilprothesen bei intaktem vorderem Kreuzband ­ ein Zukunftsmodell?

BACKGROUND: Preserving both cruciate ligaments in knee prosthetics enables approximately physiological joint kinematics. In this way, faster rehabilitation and a higher return-to-sports rate can be achieved. Accordingly, there are considerations to preserve both cruciate ligaments by combining two partial prostheses in the case of symptomatic bicompartmental (BiCom) knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This article summarizes the literature on BiCom arthroplasty and describes our own experiences from 54 consecutive cases with robotic-assisted technology. RESULTS: According to current data, BiCom arthroplasty shows good clinical results, without being able to demonstrate a clear advantage over conventional TKA. The revision risk is slightly increased in the short-term interval, which could be positively addressed with robotic-assistance. The disadvantages are the increased implant costs and the risk of subsequent osteoarthritis. Accordingly, patients who may potentially take advantage of this treatment must be critically selected.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

Importance: Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. Objective: To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Exposure: Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Results: Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.