A1043. IS UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT MORE ACCURATE WITH ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE?

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an increasingly attractive and clinically successful treatment for individuals with isolated medial compartment disease who demand high levels of function. A major challenge with UKA is to place the components accurately so they are mechanically harmonious with the retained joint surfaces, ligaments and capsule. Misalignment of UKA components compromises clinical outcomes and implant longevity. Cobb et al. (JBJS-Br 2006) showed that robot-assisted placement of UKA components was more accurate than traditional techniques, and subsequently that the clinical outcomes were improved. Cobb’s method, however, employed rigid intraoperative stabilization of the bones in a stereotactic frame, which is impractical for routine clinical use. Robotic systems have now advanced to include dynamic bone tracking technologies so that rigid fixation is no longer required. The question is -Do these robotic systems with dynamic bone tracking provide the same accuracy advantages demonstrated with robotic systems with rigidly fixed bones? We compared robot-assisted and traditionally instrumented UKA in six bilateral pairs of cadaver specimens. In all knees, a CT-based preoperative plan was performed to determine the ideal positions and orientations for the implant components. Traditional manual instruments were utilized with a tissue-sparing approach to implant one knee of each pair. A haptic robotic system acting as a virtual cutting guide was used to perform the robot-assisted UKA, again with a tissue-sparing approach. Postoperative CT scans were obtained from all knees, and the 3D placement errors were quantified using 3D-to-3D registration of implant and bone models to the reconstructed CT volumes.

The magnitudes of femoral implant orientation error were significantly smaller for the robot-assisted implants compared to traditionally implanted components (4° vs 11°, p< 0.001), but the magnitudes of femoral placement error did not reach significance (3mm vs. 5mm, p=0.056). The magnitudes of tibial implant placement error were not significantly different (4mm vs. 5mm and 7° vs. 7°, p> 0.05).

Well-placed UKA implants can provide durable and excellent functional results, which is an increasingly attractive option for young and active patients with severe compartmental osteoarthritis who wish not to have or to delay a total knee replacement.

Previous studies have demonstrated significant improvement in implant placement accuracy and clinical results with robot-assisted surgery using rigid bone fixation. This study demonstrates it is possible to achieve significant accuracy improvements with robot-assisted techniques allowing free bone movement. Additional larger trials will be required to determine if these differences are realized in clinical populations.