Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Robotic arm-assisted conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty

  • F. Mancino
  • , A. Fontalis
  • , T. S.P. Grandhi
  • , B. Kayani
  • , A. Magan
  • , R. Plastow
  • , F. S. Haddad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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-assistedTKA at short-term follow-up. Methods This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA toTKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primaryTKA. 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). Results There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to mean change in haemoglobin concentration (p = 0.477), length of stay (LOS, p = 0.172), mean polyethylene thickness (p = 0.065), or postoperative complication rates (p = 0.295). At the most recent follow-up, the primary robotic arm-assistedTKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA toTKA group (44.6 (SD 2.7) vs 42.3 (SD 2.5); p = 0.004) but there was no difference in the overall ROM (p = 0.056) or FJS between the two treatment groups (86.1 (SD 9.6) vs 84.1 (4.9); p = 0.439). Conclusion Robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA toTKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary roboticTKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA toTKA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)680-687
Number of pages8
JournalBone and Joint Journal
Volume106 B
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2024
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic arm-assisted conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this