Abstract
Introduction
Existing studies report more accurate implant placement with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA); however, surgeon experience has not always been accounted for. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of an experienced, high-volume surgeon to published data on robotic-assisted UKA tibial component alignment.
Methods
One hundred thirty-one consecutive manual UKAs performed by a single surgeon using a cemented, fixed bearing implant were radiographically reviewed by an independent reviewer to avoid surgeon bias. Native and tibial implant slope and coronal alignment were measured on pre- and postoperative lateral and anteroposterior radiographs, respectively. Manual targets were set within 2° of native tibial slope and 0 to 2° varus tibial component alignment. Deviations from target were calculated as root mean square (RMS) errors and were compared to robotic-assisted UKA data.
Results
One hundred twenty-eight UKAs were analyzed. The proportion of manual UKAs within the target for tibial component alignment (66%) exceeded published values comparing robotic (58%) to manual (41%) UKA. RMS error for tibial component alignment (1.5°) was less than published RMS error rates in robotic UKAs (range 1.8 to 5°). Fifty-eight percent of study UKAs were within the surgeon's preoperative goal for tibial slope, closer to published findings of 80% for robotic UKAs vs. 22% of manual UKAs. RMS error for tibial slope in study UKAs (1.5°) was smaller than RMS error rates for tibial slope in robotic UKAs (range 1.6 to 1.9°).
Conclusion
These data demonstrate that an experienced, high-volume surgeon's accuracy in manual UKA can meet or exceed robotic-assisted UKA. Therefore, a surgeon's experience and aptitude should be taken into account when determining the value of robotics in knee arthroplasty. Further, the relationship between implant position and patient outcomes, and consensus on ideal surgical targets for optimal survivorship need further elucidation.
