Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Methods. Postoperative radiological outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic centre were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiologically measured to identify outliers. Results. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers. Conclusion. Robotic system navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA. Given the association between component placement errors and revision in UKA, this strong significant improvement in accuracy may improve implant survival. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:191–197

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Materials & Methods. Postoperative radiographic outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic center were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiographically measured to identify outliers. Clinical results at 4–6 weeks postoperative were compared to a control cohort of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients from our institution. Results. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiographic outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs. 12.6%, p=0.006), FSA (17.4% vs. 50.2%, p<0.001), TCA (5.8% vs. 41.5%, p<0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs. 18.6%, p=0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.042), posterior (1.2% vs. 13.4%, p=0.001), and medial (1.2% vs. 14.2%, p<0.001) overhang outliers. RAUKA demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain and outcomes compared to TKA at 4–6 weeks (p<0.05). Conclusions. Robotic navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA and improves clinical results compare to TKA in the early postoperative period. Given the association between component placement errors and revision in UKA, this strong significant improvement in accuracy is likely to improve implant survival

Background. The purpose of this study was to assess the overall clinical and radiographic outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the 2–10 year postoperative period. The secondary goal was to compare outcomes between fixed- (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) implant designs. Methods. We performed a retrospective analysis of 237 consecutive primary medial UKAs from a single academic center. All cases were performed by high-volume fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons, though UKA comprised <10% of their overall knee arthroplasty practice (<20 medial UKAs per surgeon per year). Clinical outcomes included the Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) and revision rates. Femoral and tibial coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA, TCA, TSA) were radiographically measured. FCA (>±10º deviation from the neutral axis), FSA (>15º flexion), TCA (>±5º deviation from the neutral axis), and TSA (>±5º deviation from 7º) outliers were defined. Far outliers were defined as measurements that fell an additional >±2º outside of these ranges. Outcomes were compared between the FB and MB groups. Results. Overall, OKS scores improved significantly from 18.6 to 34.2 (p<0.0001) following UKA. The overall revision rate at an average 5.5-year follow-up was 14.3%. Only 48.9% and 46.4% of knees simultaneously fell within coronal and sagittal alignment targets for femoral and tibial alignment, respectively. Only 24.1% of all UKAs fell within target alignment in all four measurements. When comparing FB and MB knees, there was no difference in the overall revision rate (12.5% vs. 17.6%, p=0.280), nor were there differences in postoperative OKS (33.6 vs. 35.4, p=0.239) or outlier risk. Conclusions. The proportion of UKA revisions and alignment outliers is greater than expected, even among high-volume surgeons. In general, implant design does not appear to significantly impact clinical outcomes, revision rates, or implant alignment. There was a trend for far outliers to have a higher rate of revision and lower OKS. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Knee arthroplasty surgery is a highly effective treatment for arthritis and disorders of the knee. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee arthroplasty available to surgeons. As a result of a number of highly publicized failures, arthroplasty surgery is highly regulated in the UK and many other countries through national registries, introduced to monitor implant performance, surgeons, and hospitals. With time, the options available within many brand portfolios have grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials, or shapes and patella resurfacings. In this study we have investigated the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios and where there may be a lack of transparency around a brand name. We also aimed to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations.