Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A1070. EARLY CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED UKA COMPARED WITH CONVENTIONAL MANUAL ONLAY COMPONENTS



Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is realizing a resurgence due to factors such as improved alignment and sizing of components during surgery. This study compares the early results of two implantation techniques – robotic-assisted and standard manual alignment guides – to evaluate how a new technology developed to improve accuracy affects early patient outcomes.

For this study, we chose a prospective consecutive series of 20 patients in each group to receive a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The patients were evaluated clinically using standard outcomes measures (Knee Society, WOMAC and Oxford scores) as well as for modes of failure. Average follow-up for the manual onlay technique was 12 months and for the robotic-assisted inlay technique was and 10 months. Patients were not statistically different in terms of BMI, age, or diagnosis (p> 0.05).

Knee society score (p=0.65), total WOMAC score (p=0.75) and Oxford knee score (p=0.88) were not statistically different between the three groups. Five patients in the robotic-assisted inlay group complained of persistent tibial pain that resolved in four patients. There were no revisions for the manual onlay implant group and there was one revision for persistent tibial pain in the robotic-assisted inlay group, consisting of a conversion to a standard manual onlay UKA tibial component.

Patient outcomes were similar with inlay robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with conventional manual onlay implant techniques. Roboticassisted inlay components resulted in slightly increased complaints of tibial pain and had one revision for tibial pain, however the revision was to a standard onlay UKA tibial component.

Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net