Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have both been shown to be effective treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Many studies have compared the outcomes of the two treatments, but less so with the use of robotics, or individualized TKA alignment techniques. Functional alignment (FA) is a novel technique for performing a TKA and shares many principles with UKA. Our aim was to compare outcomes from a case-matched series of robotic-assisted UKAs and robotic-assisted TKAs performed using FA.

Aims. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) promises accurate implant placement with the potential of improved survival and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the current evidence for robotic-assisted UKA and describe the outcome in terms of implant positioning, range of movement (ROM), function and survival, and the types of robot and implants that are currently used. Materials and Methods. A search of PubMed and Medline was performed in October 2018 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee”, and “surgery”. The criteria for inclusion was any study describing the use of robotic UKA and reporting implant positioning, ROM, function, and survival for clinical, cadaveric, or dry bone studies. Results. A total of 528 articles were initially identified from the databases and reference lists. Following full text screening, 38 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. In all, 20 studies reported on implant positioning, 18 on functional outcomes, 16 on survivorship, and six on ROM. The Mako (Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey) robot was used in 32 studies (84%), the BlueBelt Navio (Blue Belt Technologies, Plymouth, Minnesota) in three (8%), the Sculptor RGA (Stanmore Implants, Borehamwood United Kingdom) in two (5%), and the Acrobot (The Acrobot Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom) in one study (3%). The most commonly used implant was the Restoris MCK (Stryker). Nine studies (24%) did not report the implant that was used. The pooled survivorship at six years follow-up was 96%. However, when assessing survival according to implant design, survivorship of an inlay (all-polyethylene) tibial implant was 89%, whereas that of an onlay (metal-backed) implant was 97% at six years (odds ratio 3.66, 95% confidence interval 20.7 to 6.46, p < 0.001). Conclusion. There is little description of the choice of implant when reporting robotic-assisted UKA, which is essential when assessing survivorship, in the literature. Implant positioning with robotic-assisted UKA is more accurate and more reproducible than that performed manually and may offer better functional outcomes, but whether this translates into improved implant survival in the mid- to longer-term remains to be seen. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:838–847

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Aims

The primary aim of the study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) with manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) for the management of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Secondary aims were to compare length of hospital stay, general health improvement, and satisfaction between rUKA and mTKA.

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