Electromagnetic Navigated Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty-A Five-Year Follow-Up of a Single-Blind Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to provide the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized study comparing conventional versus electromagnetic computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Analysis of 127 patients (66 navigated and 61 conventional surgeries) was performed from a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 5 years after surgery and compared with previously published 1-year clinical outcomes. Five-year surgical revision rates were collated and compared between intervention groups. RESULTS: Overall, there have been continued improvements in the clinical scores of patients in both groups when compared with clinical data at 1 year; however, at 5 years, there is no statistical difference in any of the patient-reported outcome measures between conventional and navigated surgery. Interestingly, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated (0% revision rate) compared with the conventional group (4.9% all-cause revision rate). CONCLUSION: Electromagnetic computer navigated technology produces similar clinical outcomes compared with traditional surgery. Further work is required to monitor implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes with long-term follow-up, to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology.

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.

Influence of skin incision position on physiological and biochemical changes in tissue after primary total knee replacement - a prospective randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Influence of skin incision position on physiological and biochemical changes in tissue after primary total knee replacement. A prospective randomised controlled trial. The blood supply to the skin covering the anterior knee has been shown to arise predominantly from blood vessels on the medial side of the knee. Skin incisions for primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR) positioned medially therefore risk creating a large lateral skin flap that may be poorly perfused. Poorly perfused skin is likely to result in hypoxia at the wound edges and consequently may lead to delayed wound healing and complications. METHODS: We have carried out a randomised controlled trial (n = 20) to compare blood flow on both the medial and lateral sides of two commonly used skin incisions in TKR (midline and paramedian). We have also assessed interstitial biochemistry (glucose, pyruvate and lactate levels) in the presumed at risk lateral skin flap of both incision types. RESULTS: In both incision types tissue hyper-perfusion occurs post-operatively and is maintained for at least 3 days. We found no significant difference between blood flow between the two incision types on the medial side of the incision at either day 1 (p = 0.885) or day 3 post-op (p = 0.269), or, on the lateral side of the incision (p = 0.885 at day 1, p = 0.532 at day 3). Glucose levels are maintained post-operatively in the at risk lateral flap with only minimal changes. Lactate levels rise post-operatively and remain elevated for at least 24 hours. However, the levels did not reach levels suggestive of critical ischaemia in either incision group and no significant difference was observed between incision types. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of a paramedian incision results in only minimal biochemical changes, which are unlikely to alter wound healing. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ISRCTN06592799 .

Electromagnetic navigation in total knee arthroplasty-a single center, randomized, single-blind study comparing the results with conventional techniques.

We report on the results of a randomized study (n=200) to compare total knee arthroplasty performed using conventional instrumentation or electromagnetic computer assisted surgical technique. 92% of navigated and 85% of conventional knees were implanted within ±3° from neutral mechanical alignment; there was no statistically significant difference between these proportions. There was also no difference in femoral or tibial rotation assessed by CT scan. At 1year follow up there was no statistical difference between the two groups in American Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Scores, patient satisfaction, quality of life, hospital length of stay, complication rates or other adverse events. Tourniquet time in the navigated group was longer. Proving value for navigation in total knee arthroplasty surgery remains a challenge.

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.

Cement-in-cement versus uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures.

Background: To compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database. Results: We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate. Conclusion: With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.

Are there functional biomechanical differences in robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty? A prospective, randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery. METHODS: A total of 76 patients (34 bi-UKA and 42 TKA patients) were analyzed in a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Flat ground shod gait analysis was performed preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Knee flexion moment was calculated from motion capture markers and force plates. The same setup determined proprioception outcomes during a joint position sense test and one-leg standing. Surgery allocation, surgeon, and secondary outcomes were analyzed for prediction of the primary outcome from a binary regression model. RESULTS: Both interventions were shown to be effective treatment options, with no significant differences shown between interventions for the primary outcome of this study (18/35 (51.4%) biphasic TKA patients vs 20/31 (64.5%) biphasic bi-UKA patients; p = 0.558). All outcomes were compared to an age-matched, healthy cohort that outperformed both groups, indicating residual deficits exists following surgery. Logistic regression analysis of primary outcome with secondary outcomes indicated that the most significant predictor of postoperative biphasic knee moments was preoperative knee moment profile and trochlear degradation (Outerbridge) (R2 = 0.381; p = 0.002, p = 0.046). A separate regression of alignment against primary outcome indicated significant bi-UKA femoral and tibial axial alignment (R2 = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R2 = 0.252; p = 0.016). The bi-UKA group showed a significant increased ability in the proprioceptive joint position test, but no difference was found in more dynamic testing of proprioception. CONCLUSION: Robotic arm-assisted bi-UKA demonstrated equivalence to TKA in achieving a biphasic gait pattern after surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Both treatments are successful at improving gait, but both leave the patients with a functional limitation that is not present in healthy age-matched controls. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;103-B(4):433-443.

Early outcomes after robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively. METHODS: A per protocol analysis of 76 patients, 43 of whom underwent TKA and 34 of whom underwent bi-UKA, was performed from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diaries kept by the patients recorded pain, function, and the use of analgesics daily throughout the first week and weekly between the second and sixth weeks. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, and at three months and one year postoperatively. Data were also compared longitudinally and a subgroup analysis was conducted, stratified by preoperative PROM status. RESULTS: Both operations were shown to offer comparable outcomes, with no significant differences between the groups across all timepoints and outcome measures. Both groups also had similarly low rates of complications. Subgroup analysis for preoperative psychological state, activity levels, and BMI showed no difference in outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA offered similar early clinical outcomes and rates of complications to a mechanically aligned TKA, both in the immediate postoperative period and up to one year following surgery. Further work is required to identify which patients with osteoarthritis of the knee will derive benefit from a cruciate-sparing bi-UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1561-1570.

Robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty maintains natural knee joint anatomy compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery. METHODS: An analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups. RESULTS: The pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1511-1518.