We have investigated the benefits of patient
specific instrument guides, applied to osteotomies around the knee. Single,
dual and triple planar osteotomies were performed on tibias or femurs
in 14 subjects. In all patients, a detailed pre-operative plan was
prepared based upon full leg standing radiographic and CT scan information.
The planned level of the osteotomy and open wedge resection was
relayed to the surgery by virtue of a patient specific guide developed
from the images. The mean deviation between the planned wedge angle
and the executed wedge angle was 0° (-1 to 1, Cite this article:
Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primary TKA. In all study patients, the following data were recorded: operating time, polyethylene liner size, change in haemoglobin concentration (g/dl), length of inpatient stay, postoperative complications, and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment. All procedures were performed using the principles of functional alignment. At most recent follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected. Mean follow-up time was 21 months (6 to 36).Aims
Methods
Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019.Aims
Methods
Aims. The objective of this study is to assess the use of ultrasound (US) as a radiation-free imaging modality to reconstruct 3D anatomy of the knee for use in preoperative templating in knee arthroplasty. Methods. Using an US system, which is fitted with an electromagnetic (EM) tracker that is integrated into the US probe, allows 3D tracking of the probe, femur, and tibia. The raw US radiofrequency (RF) signals are acquired and, using real-time signal processing, bone boundaries are extracted. Bone boundaries and the tracking information are fused in a 3D point cloud for the femur and tibia. Using a statistical shaping model, the patient-specific surface is reconstructed by optimizing bone geometry to match the point clouds. An accuracy analysis was conducted for 17 cadavers by comparing the 3D US models with those created using CT. US scans from 15 users were compared in order to examine the effect of operator variability on the output. Results. The results revealed that the US bone models were accurate compared with the CT models (root mean squared error (RM)S: femur, 1.07 mm (SD 0.15); tibia, 1.02 mm (SD 0.13). Additionally, femoral landmarking proved to be accurate (transepicondylar axis: 1.07° (SD 0.65°); posterior condylar axis: 0.73° (SD 0.41°); distal condylar axis: 0.96° (SD 0.89°); medial anteroposterior (AP): 1.22 mm (SD 0.69); lateral AP: 1.21 mm (SD 1.02)). Tibial landmarking errors were slightly higher (posterior slope axis: 1.92° (SD 1.31°); and tubercle axis: 1.91° (SD 1.24°)). For implant sizing, 90% of the femora and 60% of the tibiae were sized correctly, while the remainder were only one size different from the required implant size. No difference was observed between moderate and skilled users. Conclusion. The 3D US bone models were proven to be closely matched compared with CT and suitable for preoperative
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone-preserving treatment option for osteoarthritis localized to a single compartment in the knee. The success of the procedure is sensitive to patient selection and alignment errors. Robotic arm-assisted UKA provides technological assistance to intraoperative bony resection accuracy, which is thought to improve ligament balancing. This paper presents the five-year outcomes of a comparison between manual and robotically assisted UKAs. The trial design was a prospective, randomized, parallel, single-centre study comparing surgical alignment in patients undergoing UKA for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis (ISRCTN77119437). Participants underwent surgery using either robotic arm-assisted surgery or conventional manual instrumentation. The primary outcome measure (surgical accuracy) has previously been reported, and, along with secondary outcomes, were collected at one-, two-, and five-year timepoints. Analysis of five-year results and longitudinal analysis for all timepoints was performed to compare the two groups.Aims
Methods
Aims
Patients and Methods
There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) for all UKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedures using the Restoris MCK UKA prosthesis implanted using the Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted System were compared to non-robotically assisted Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System (ZUK) UKA, a commonly used UKA with previously reported good outcomes and to all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship.Aim
Methods
In this study we randomised 140 patients who
were due to undergo primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to have the
procedure performed using either patient-specific cutting guides
(PSCG) or conventional instrumentation (CI). The primary outcome measure was the mechanical axis, as measured
at three months on a standing long-leg radiograph by the hip–knee–ankle
(HKA) angle. This was undertaken by an independent observer who
was blinded to the instrumentation. Secondary outcome measures were
component positioning, operating time, Knee Society and Oxford knee
scores, blood loss and length of hospital stay. A total of 126 patients (67 in the CI group and 59 in the PSCG
group) had complete clinical and radiological data. There were 88
females and 52 males with a mean age of 69.3 years (47 to 84) and
a mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m2 (20.2 to 40.8). The mean HKA
angle was 178.9° (172.5 to 183.4) in the CI group and 178.2° (172.4
to 183.4) in the PSCG group (p = 0.34). Outliers were identified
in 22 of 67 knees (32.8%) in the CI group and 19 of 59 knees (32.2%)
in the PSCG group (p = 0.99). There was no significant difference
in the clinical results (p = 0.95 and 0.59, respectively). Operating time,
blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly reduced
(p = 0.09, 0.58 and 0.50, respectively) when using PSCG. The use of PSCG in primary TKA did not reduce the proportion
of outliers as measured by post-operative coronal alignment. Cite this article:
