Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 11 | Pages 631 - 639
1 Nov 2017
Blyth MJG Anthony I Rowe P Banger MS MacLean A Jones B

Objectives. This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group. Methods. A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results. From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 8 | Pages 514 - 521
1 Aug 2017
Mannering N Young T Spelman T Choong PF

Objectives

Whilst gait speed is variable between healthy and injured adults, the extent to which speed alone alters the 3D in vivo knee kinematics has not been fully described. The purpose of this prospective study was to understand better the spatiotemporal and 3D knee kinematic changes induced by slow compared with normal self-selected walking speeds within young healthy adults.

Methods

A total of 26 men and 25 women (18 to 35 years old) participated in this study. Participants walked on a treadmill with the KneeKG system at a slow imposed speed (2 km/hr) for three trials, then at a self-selected comfortable walking speed for another three trials. Paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were conducted using Stata/IC 14 to compare kinematics of slow versus self-selected walking speed.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 10
1 Jan 2016
Burghardt RD Manzotti A Bhave A Paley D Herzenberg JE

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the results and complications of tibial lengthening over an intramedullary nail with treatment using the traditional Ilizarov method. Methods. In this matched case study, 16 adult patients underwent 19 tibial lengthening over nails (LON) procedures. For the matched case group, 17 patients who underwent 19 Ilizarov tibial lengthenings were retrospectively matched to the LON group. Results. The mean external fixation time for the LON group was 2.6 months and for the matched case group was 7.6 months. The mean lengthening amounts for the LON and the matched case groups were 5.2 cm and 4.9 cm, respectively. The radiographic consolidation time in the LON group was 6.6 months and in the matched case group 7.6 months. Using a clinical and radiographic outcome score that was designed for this study, the outcome was determined to be excellent in 17 and good in two patients for the LON group. The outcome was excellent in 14 and good in five patients in the matched case group. The LON group had increased blood loss and increased cost. The LON group had four deep infections; the matched case group did not have any deep infections. Conclusions. The outcomes in the LON group were comparable with the outcomes in the matched case group. The LON group had a shorter external fixation time but experienced increased blood loss, increased cost, and four cases of deep infection. The advantage of reducing external fixation treatment time may outweigh these disadvantages in patients who have a healthy soft-tissue envelope. Cite this article: J. E. Herzenberg. Tibial lengthening over intramedullary nails: A matched case comparison with Ilizarov tibial lengthening. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:1–10. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.51.2000577


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 4 | Pages 35 - 38
1 Aug 2014
Hammerberg EM