Introduction

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for isolated medial knee arthritis is a highly successful and efficacious procedure. However, UKA is technically more challenging than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Research has shown that surgical technical errors may lead to high early failure rates. Haptic robotic systems have recently been developed with the goal of improving accuracy, reducing complications, and improving overall outcomes. There is little research comparing robotic-assisted UKA to standard UKA. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic data for matched cohorts who received robotic-arm assisted UKA or standard instrumentation UKA.

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for isolated medial knee arthritis is a highly successful and efficacious procedure. However, UKA is technically more challenging than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Research has shown that surgical technical errors may lead to high early failure rates. Haptic robotic systems have recently been developed with the goal of improving accuracy, reducing complications, and improving overall outcomes. There is little research comparing robotic-assisted UKA to standard UKA. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic data for matched cohorts who received robotic-arm assisted UKA or standard instrumentation UKA.

We performed a non-randomised, retrospective review of 30 robotic-arm assisted UKA and 32 manual UKA performed by single fellowship-trained joint arthroplasty surgeon (SKK) over 2.5 years. All procedures completed through a medial parapatellar approach. All components were cemented. All tibial components were a metal-backed onlay design. Average follow-up was 10.1 months (range 5–36). A full clinical/hospital chart review of demographic, intra- and post-operative measures was performed. Radiographic analysis of pre- and post-op images evaluating sagital and coronal alignment, and component positioning was performed by single observer (DCH), using OsiriX imaging system (Pixmeo; Geneva, Switzerland). Radiographs were available for analysis in 28 robotic-assisted and 30 manual patients. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v. 20. Comparison between group means was performed as well as calculation of variance in component placement within groups.

No demographic differences were seen between groups. Operative time was significantly longer in robotic-assisted UKA compared to the manual group. Minimal clinical post-op differences were seen between groups. The robotic group showed some early advantage in ambulation/ROM during inpatient stay. This ROM difference reversed at 2 weeks post-op. Continued medial-sided knee pain was reported more commonly in robotic group. Radiographic results showed no difference between groups in pre-op mechanical alignment. The robotic group was significantly more accurate at recreating femoral axis. Accuracy in recreation of tibial slope/ was similar between groups. Accuracy of the tibial component in the coronal plane was not significantly different between groups. The robotic group did have significantly larger variance in coronal alignment of the tibial component. Medial overhang of tibial component was significantly greater and more variable in the manual group. Non-significant decrease in resection depth found in robotic group.

There were minimal clinical and radiographic differences between techniques. Clinically, both cohorts did very well. Radiographically, both groups had quite accurate placement of components, with the most obvious difference being the increased tibial component overhang in the manual group. The increased variance in tibial component alignment in the robotic group is likely due to the ability to more specifically alter the resection to fit the patient's specific anatomy. Overall, our data suggests that the purported benefits of robotic UKA may be obviated in the hands of a surgeon with training and experience in manual UKA implantation.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.