Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. The study analyzed a consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA between September 2018 and December 2019. Of these, 30 patients had DDH and were classified according to the Crowe type. Acetabular component alignment and 3D positions were measured using pre- and postoperative CT data. The absolute differences of cup alignment and 3D position were compared between DDH and non-DDH patients. Moreover, these differences were analyzed in relation to the severity of DDH. The discrepancy of leg length and combined offset compared with contralateral hip were measured. Results. The mean values of absolute differences (postoperative CT-preoperative plan) were 1.7° (standard deviation (SD) 2.0) (inclination) and 2.5° (SD 2.1°) (anteversion) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between non-DDH and DDH patients. The mean absolute differences for 3D cup position were 1.1 mm (SD 1.0) (coronal plane) and 1.2 mm (SD 2.1) (axial plane) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between two groups. No significant difference was found either in cup alignment between postoperative CT and navigation record after cup screws or in the severity of DDH. Excellent restoration of leg length and combined offset were achieved in both groups. Conclusion. We demonstrated that robotic-assisted THA may achieve precise cup positioning in DDH patients, and may be useful in those with severe DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(10):629–638

Aims. The objectives of this study were to compare postoperative pain, analgesia requirements, inpatient functional rehabilitation, time to hospital discharge, and complications in patients undergoing conventional jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus robotic-arm assisted UKA. Patients and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 146 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary UKA performed by a single surgeon. This included 73 consecutive patients undergoing conventional jig-based mobile bearing UKA, followed by 73 consecutive patients receiving robotic-arm assisted fixed bearing UKA. All surgical procedures were performed using the standard medial parapatellar approach for UKA, and all patients underwent the same postoperative rehabilitation programme. Postoperative pain scores on the numerical rating scale and opiate analgesia consumption were recorded until discharge. Time to attainment of predefined functional rehabilitation outcomes, hospital discharge, and postoperative complications were recorded by independent observers. Results. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with reduced postoperative pain (p < 0.001), decreased opiate analgesia requirements (p < 0.001), shorter time to straight leg raise (p < 0.001), decreased number of physiotherapy sessions (p < 0.001), and increased maximum knee flexion at discharge (p < 0.001) compared with conventional jig-based UKA. Mean time to hospital discharge was reduced in robotic UKA compared with conventional UKA (42.5 hours (. sd 5.9). vs 71.1 hours (. sd. 14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two groups within 90 days’ follow-up. Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with decreased postoperative pain, reduced opiate analgesia requirements, improved early functional rehabilitation, and shorter time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based UKA

Aims. The purpose of this multicentre observational study was to investigate the association between intraoperative component positioning and soft-tissue balancing on short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Patients and Methods. Between 2013 and 2016, 363 patients (395 knees) underwent robotic-arm assisted UKAs at two centres. Pre- and postoperatively, patients were administered Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Results were stratified as “good” and “bad” if KOOS/FJS-12 were more than or equal to 80. Intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data relative to CT-based components placement were collected and classified. Postoperative complications were recorded. Results. Following exclusions and losses to follow-up, 334 medial robotic-arm assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 30.0 months (8.0 to 54.9). None of the measured parameters were associated with overall KOOS outcome. Correlations were described between specific KOOS subscales and intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data, and between FJS-12 and femoral component sagittal alignment. Three UKAs were revised, resulting in 99.0% survival at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.9 to 100.0). Conclusion. Although little correlation was found between intraoperative robotic data and overall clinical outcome, surgeons should consider information regarding 3D component placement and soft-tissue balancing to improve patient satisfaction. Reproducible and precise placement of components has been confirmed as essential for satisfactory clinical outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:435–442

Aims. The objective of this study was to compare early postoperative functional outcomes and time to hospital discharge between conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and robotic-arm assisted TKA. Patients and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 40 consecutive patients undergoing conventional jig-based TKA followed by 40 consecutive patients receiving robotic-arm assisted TKA. All surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon using the medial parapatellar approach with identical implant designs and standardized postoperative inpatient rehabilitation. Inpatient functional outcomes and time to hospital discharge were collected in all study patients. Results. There were no systematic differences in baseline characteristics between the conventional jig-based TKA and robotic-arm assisted TKA treatment groups with respect to age (p = 0.32), gender (p = 0.50), body mass index (p = 0.17), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.88), and preoperative haemoglobin level (p = 0.82). Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with reduced postoperative pain (p < 0.001), decreased analgesia requirements (p < 0.001), decreased reduction in postoperative haemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), shorter time to straight leg raise (p < 0.001), decreased number of physiotherapy sessions (p < 0.001) and improved maximum knee flexion at discharge (p < 0.001) compared with conventional jig-based TKA. Median time to hospital discharge in robotic-arm assisted TKA was 77 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 74 to 81) compared with 105 hours (IQR 98 to 126) in conventional jig-based TKA (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with decreased pain, improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:930–7

Aims. Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. Methods. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey. Results. Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.0 to 10.8). Five-year survivorship of medial UKA (n = 802), lateral UKA (n = 171), and PFA/BiKA (n = 35/10) was 97.8%, 97.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. Component loosening and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were the most common reasons for revision. Mean KOOS scores after medial UKA, lateral UKA, and PFA/BiKA were 84.3 (SD 15.9), 85.6 (SD 14.3), and 78.2 (SD 14.2), respectively. The vast majority of the patients reported high satisfaction levels after RA PKA. Subgroup analyses suggested tibial component design, body mass index (BMI), and age affects RA PKA outcomes. Five-year survivorship was 98.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.2 to 99.5) for onlay medial UKA (n = 742) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.9 to 100) for onlay medial UKA in patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m. 2. (n = 479). Conclusion. This large single-surgeon study showed high mid-term survivorship, satisfaction levels, and functional outcomes in RA UKA using metal-backed tibial onlay components. In addition, favourable results were reported in RA PFA and BiKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):108–116

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to compare the postoperative systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (conventional TKA) versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (robotic TKA). Secondary aims were to compare the macroscopic soft tissue injury, femoral and tibial bone trauma, localized thermal response, and the accuracy of component positioning between the two treatment groups. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing conventional TKA versus robotic TKA. Predefined serum markers of inflammation and localized knee temperature were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at six hours, day 1, day 2, day 7, and day 28 following TKA. Blinded observers used the Macroscopic Soft Tissue Injury (MASTI) classification system to grade intraoperative periarticular soft tissue injury and bone trauma. Plain radiographs were used to assess the accuracy of achieving the planned postioning of the components in both groups. Results. Patients undergoing conventional TKA and robotic TKA had comparable changes in the postoperative systemic inflammatory and localized thermal response at six hours, day 1, day 2, and day 28 after surgery. Robotic TKA had significantly reduced levels of interleukin-6 (p < 0.001), tumour necrosis factor-α (p = 0.021), ESR (p = 0.001), CRP (p = 0.004), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.007), and creatine kinase (p = 0.004) at day 7 after surgery compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with significantly improved preservation of the periarticular soft tissue envelope (p < 0.001), and reduced femoral (p = 0.012) and tibial (p = 0.023) bone trauma compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA significantly improved the accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment (p < 0.001), femoral component positioning (p < 0.001), and tibial component positioning (p < 0.001) compared with conventional TKA. Conclusion. Robotic TKA was associated with a transient reduction in the early (day 7) postoperative inflammatory response but there was no difference in the immediate (< 48 hours) or late (day 28) postoperative systemic inflammatory response compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with decreased iatrogenic periarticular soft tissue injury, reduced femoral and tibial bone trauma, and improved accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):113–122

Aims

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement when using robotic assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA. Patients and Methods. This prospective single-surgeon cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based UKAs compared with 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted UKAs for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Patients undergoing conventional UKA and robotic-arm assisted UKA were well-matched for baseline characteristics including a mean age of 65.5 years (. sd. 6.8) vs 64.1 years (. sd. 8.7), (p = 0.31); a mean body mass index of 27.2 kg.m2 (. sd. 2.7) vs 28.1 kg.m2 (. sd. 4.5), (p = 0.25); and gender (27 males: 33 females vs 26 males: 34 females, p = 0.85). Surrogate measures of the learning curve were prospectively collected. These included operative times, the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire to assess preoperative stress levels amongst the surgical team, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications. Results. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time (p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels (p < 0.001). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (p = 0.52), posterior condylar offset ratio (p = 0.71), posterior tibial slope (p = 0.68), native joint line preservation (p = 0.55), and postoperative limb alignment (p = 0.65). Robotic-arm assisted UKA improved accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional jig-based UKA. Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time and surgical team confidence levels but no learning curve for accuracy of implant positioning. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1033–42

Objectives. The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction. Materials and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. Patients undergoing conventional manual THA and robotic-arm assisted THA were well matched for age (mean age, 69.4 years (. sd. 5.2) vs 67.5 years (. sd. 5.8) (p = 0.25); body mass index (27.4 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 2.1) vs 26.9 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 2.2); p = 0.39); and laterality of surgery (right = 28, left = 22 vs right = 12, left = 13; p = 0.78). All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recorded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. Results. The correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) for intraobserver agreement and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94) for interobserver agreement in all study outcomes. Robotic THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native horizontal (p < 0.001) and vertical (p < 0.001) centres of rotation, and improved preservation of the patient’s native combined offset (p < 0.001) compared with conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular component within the combined safe zones of inclination and anteversion described by Lewinnek et al (p = 0.02) and Callanan et al (p = 0.01) compared with conventional THA. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p = 0.10). Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native centre of rotation, better preservation of the combined offset, and more precise acetabular component positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared with conventional manual THA

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Aims. The objectives of this study were to assess the effect of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) resection on flexion-extension gaps, mediolateral soft tissue laxity, maximum knee extension, and limb alignment during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. This prospective study included 140 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary robotic-arm assisted TKA. All operative procedures were performed by a single surgeon using a standard medial parapatellar approach. Optical motion capture technology with fixed femoral and tibial registration pins was used to assess study outcomes pre- and post-ACL resection with knee extension and 90° knee flexion. This study included 76 males (54.3%) and 64 females (45.7%) with a mean age of 64.1 years (SD 6.8) at time of surgery. Mean preoperative hip-knee-ankle deformity was 6.1° varus (SD 4.6° varus). Results. ACL resection increased the mean extension gap significantly more than the flexion gap in the medial (mean 1.2 mm (SD 1.0) versus mean 0.2 mm (SD 0.7) respectively; p < 0.001) and lateral (mean 1.1 mm (SD 0.9) versus mean 0.2 mm (SD 0.6) respectively; p < 0.001) compartments. The mean gap differences following ACL resection did not create any significant mediolateral soft tissue laxity in extension (gap difference: mean 0.1 mm (SD 2.4); p = 0.89) or flexion (gap difference: mean 0.2 mm (SD 3.1); p = 0.40). ACL resection did not significantly affect maximum knee extension (change in maximum knee extension = mean 0.2° (SD 0.7°); p = 0.23) or fixed flexion deformity (mean 4.2° (SD 3.2°) pre-ACL release versus mean 3.9° (SD 3.7°) post-ACL release; p = 0.61). ACL resection did not significantly affect overall limb alignment (change in alignment = mean 0.2° valgus (SD 1.0° valgus; p = 0.11). Conclusion. ACL resection creates flexion-extension mismatch by increasing the extension gap more than the flexion gap. However, gap differences following ACL resection do not create any mediolateral soft tissue laxity in extension or flexion. ACL resection does not affect maximum knee extension or overall limb alignment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):442–448

Aim. 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. Methods. 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. Results. There was no difference in the rate of revision when the Mako-assisted Restoris UKA was compared to the ZUK UKA (zero to nine months: HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.83; p = 0.596) vs nine months and over: HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.02; p = 0.058)). The Mako-assisted Restoris had a significantly lower overall revision rate compared to the other types of non-robotically assisted procedures (HR 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.79); p < 0.001) at three years. Revision for aseptic loosening was lower for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to all other non-robotically assisted UKA (entire period: HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.65); p = 0.001), but not the ZUK prosthesis. However, revision for infection was significantly higher for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to the two comparator groups (ZUK: entire period: HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.22 to 6.98; p = 0.016); other non-robotically assisted UKA: zero to three months: HR 5.57 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.31; p < 0.001)). Conclusion. This study reports comparable short-term survivorship for the Mako robotically assisted UKA compared to the ZUK UKA and improved survivorship compared to all other non-robotic UKA. These results justify the continued use and investigation of this procedure. However, the higher rate of early revision for infection for robotically assisted UKA requires further investigation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):319–328

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

Aims

Postoperative length of stay (LOS) and discharge dispositions following arthroplasty can be used as surrogate measurements for improvements in patients’ pathways and costs. With the increasing use of robotic technology in arthroplasty, it is important to assess its impact on LOS. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with decreased LOS following robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RO THA) compared with the conventional technique (CO THA).

Aims

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) is a major complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncemented femoral components are widely preferred in primary THA, but are associated with higher PPF risk than cemented components. Collared components have reduced PPF rates following uncemented primary THA compared to collarless components, while maintaining similar prosthetic designs. The purpose of this study was to analyze PPF rate between collarless and collared component designs in a consecutive cohort of posterior approach THAs performed by two high-volume surgeons.

Aims

While residual fixed flexion deformity (FFD) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been associated with worse functional outcomes, limited evidence exists regarding FFD changes. The objective of this study was to quantify FFD changes in patients with medial unicompartmental knee arthritis undergoing UKA, and investigate any correlation with clinical outcomes.

Aims

The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA.

Aims

Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position.

Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using functional alignment aims to implant the components with minimal compromise of the soft-tissue envelope by restoring the plane and obliquity of the non-arthritic joint. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of TKA with functional alignment on mediolateral soft-tissue balance as assessed using intraoperative sensor-guided technology.