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

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

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) (R. 2. = 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 (R. 2. = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R. 2. = 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

Nowdays bicompartmental arthritis of the knee in patients younger than 60 still remains a challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. In these selected cases, the authors present their experience in performing a minimally invasive bi-unicompartmental knee replacement assisted by computer navigation. From January to December 2003, the authors treated seven patients (seven knees) with bicompartmental arthritis of the knee. The mean age was 66 and in all the cases an arthritis deformity was present but with no ligament deficiency and a pain-free femur-patella joint. The Orhophilot (4.0 version) navigation system was used during the surgery to assist prosthesis placement. In all the cases a minimally invasive surgical approach was used (7- to 9-cm skin incision). The patients were assessed using a UKR dedicated outcome score (GIUM Score), pre-operatively and at the latest follow-up. Pre-operatively the mean GIUM score was 49.1 (range 26–63). At the lastest follow-up the mean GIUM score was 80.2 (range :75–94). The average femoral-tibial angle was 179° (range 177°–181°). In all the cases a good ligament balancing was achieved using a computer-assisted spreader device. All the patients were satisfied and had returned to their previous occupation soon. The authors underline how the computer navigation system supports ligament balancing and correct prosthesis alignment. They did not register any fracture of the tibial intercondylar eminence because of wrong balancing and incisions. They emphasise this truly minimally invasive surgical approach to the cure of knee arthritis, above all in young patients with post-traumatic deformities

The objective of this study was to compare differences in alignment following robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA) and conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This was a prospective, randomised controlled trial of 70 patients. 39 TKAs were implanted manually, as per standard protocol at our institution, and 31 Bi-UKA patients simultaneously received fixed-bearing medial and lateral UKAs, implanted using robotic arm-assistance. Preoperative and 3-month postoperative CT scans were analysed to determine hip knee ankle angle (HKAA), medial distal femoral angle (MDFA), and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA). Analysis was repeated for 10 patients by a second rater to validate measurement reliability by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Mean change in HKAA towards neutral was 2.7° in TKA patients and 2.3° in Bi-UKA patients (P=0.6). Mean change in MDFA was 2.5° for TKA and 1.0° for Bi-UKA (P<0.01). Mean change in MPTA was 3.7° for TKA and 0.8° for Bi-UKA (P<0.01). Mean postoperative MDFA and MPTA for TKAs were 89.8° and 89.6° respectively, indicating orientation of femoral and tibial components perpendicular to the mechanical axis. Mean postoperative MDFA and MPTA for Bi-UKAs were 91.0° and 86.9° respectively, indicating a more oblique joint line orientation. Inter-rater agreement was excellent (ICC>0.99). Early functional activities, according to the new Knee Society Scoring System, favoured Bi-UKAs (P<0.05). Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing Bi-UKA better maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal plane and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared to a mechanically aligned TKA. This has been achieved without significantly altering overall HKAA

Introduction:

This is a case report of a 78 year old male who underwent outpatient mini-incision medial UKA using the haptic robotic guidance. The patient subsequently suffered a traumatic lateral meniscus tear and underwent a lateral compartment UKA with the same robotic system instead of converting to a total knee replacement at one year post op and is now 2 years post op on the lateral side as well.

INTRODUCTION:

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) facilitates the use of smaller sized implants that require less bone resection and allows preservation of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments (ACL and PCL)[1]. Therefore, UKR preserves the intact kinematics and may improve the clinical outcomes especially compared to the outcomes of total knee replacement (TKA). Despite the known benefits of UKR in arthritis limited to one compartment, in multicompartment disease TKA remains the gold standard. Current TKA designs require the sacrifice of the ACL in all cases, whereas the surgeon can decide to use a cruciate sparing or substituting design altering normal knee kinematics. Performing bi-UKR or tri-UKR with traditional instruments is very challenging and rarely done due to the difficulty in establishing the correct spatial relationship of the separate components. Recent advances in robotic surgery have provided the opportunity to utilize partial knee replacements. The MAKO Rio platform is a surgeon-interactive robotic arm with haptic guidance that allows computer assisted planning and intraoperative accurate placement of multiple unicompartmental components including the bi-UKR. Currently there is a lack of understanding about the short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of the bi-UKR compared to the traditional TKA.

Introduction. Traditional Total Knee Arthpolasty (TKA) replaces all 3 compartments of the knee for patients diagnosed with OA. There might be functional benefit to replacing only damaged compartments, and retaining the normal ligamentous structures. There is a long history of performing multi-compartment arthroplasty with discrete components. Laskin reported in 1976 that good pain relief and acceptable clinical results were achieved at two years in patients with bi-unicondylar knee replacement [Laskin 1976]. Other authors also have reported on bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty achieving successful clinical outcomes [Stockley 1990; Confalonieri 2005]. Banks et al. reported that kinematics of bi-unicompartmental arthroplasties during gait demonstrated some of the basic features of normal knee kinematics [Banks 2005]. These reports suggest that a modular approach to resurfacing the knee can be successful and achieve satisfactory clinical and functional results. Objective. The primary objective of this study is to compare the functional outcomes of three patient groups treated for osteoarthritis. Methods. Subjects received either a modular, multicompartment knee arthroplasty (MKA) implanted with robotic-arm assistance(MAKO Surgical Corp., Fort Lauderdale, FL), a computer assisted TKA (TKA CAS) or a TKA implanted using traditional manual instrumentation (TKA T). Patients that were eligible to receive a TKA were randomly selected to receive computer assisted or traditional surgical technique and blinded to the type of TKA surgical technique utilized. We report post-operative functional outcomes including Range of Motion (ROM), Timed-up and go(TUG), and Quad strength at time intervals of 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. The TUG test is a validated measure of patient mobility where a patient is asked to stand up from a chair, walk three meters turn around and sit back down [Boonstra, 2008]. The Quad strength assessment is measured with a hand held dynamometer (Lafayette Instruments, Lafayette, IN) while patient was seated with leg at 90 degrees flexion. The patient is asked to extend their knee while a physical therapist provides resistive forces to maintain static knee flexion. All tests were administered by one physical therapist. Results. Patients that underwent MKA saw significant increase in ROM post-operatively when compared to TKA CAS patients (P<0.009) and TKA T patients (p<0.003), Figure 1. Patients that underwent MKA also saw an increase in Quad Strength, however this was only statistically significant between the MKA and TKA CAS groups, (P<0.04), Figure 2. Patients that underwent MKA saw a reduction in TUG which indicated an improved mobility post-operatively, Figure 3. The reduced TUG was only statistically significant for MKA patients compared to TKA T patients (P<0.005). There was no statistical significance seen between the two TKA groups for any functional measure. Discussion. Initial findings do indicate a short term improvement in functional outcomes for MKA patients when compared to TKA patients. Additional data clinical and functional data is being collected and enrollment is continuing for this study

Aims

There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection.