Aims. Neither a surgeon’s intraoperative impression nor the parameters of computer navigation have been shown to be predictive of the outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to determine whether a surgeon, with robotic assistance, can predict the outcome as assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain (KPS), one year postoperatively, and establish what factors correlate with poor KOOS scores in a well-aligned and balanced TKA. Methods. A total of 134 consecutive patients who underwent TKA using a dynamic ligament tensioning robotic system with a tibia first resection technique and a cruciate sacrificing ultracongruent TKA system were enrolled into a prospective study. Each TKA was graded based on the final mediolateral ligament balance at 10° and 90° of flexion: 1) < 1 mm difference in the thickness of the tibial insert and that which was planned (n = 75); 2) < 1 mm difference (n = 26); 3) between 1 mm to 2 mm difference (n = 26); and 4) > 2 mm difference (n = 7). The mean one-year KPS score for each grade of TKA was compared and the likelihood of achieving an KPS score of > 90 was calculated. Finally, the factors associated with lower KPS despite achieving a high-grade TKA (grade A and B) were analyzed. Results. Patients with a grade of A or B TKA had significantly higher mean one-year KPS scores compared with those with C or D grades (p = 0.031). There was no difference in KPS scores in grade A or B TKAs, but 33% of these patients did not have a KPS score of > 90. While there was no correlation with age, sex, preoperative deformity, and preoperative KOOS and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical scores, patients with a KPS score of < 90, despite a grade A or B TKA, had lower PROMIS mental health scores compared with those with KPS scores of > 90 (54.1 vs 50.8; p = 0.043). Patients with grade A and B TKAs with KPS > 90 were significantly more likely to respond with “my expectations were too low”, and with “the knee is performing better than expected” compared with patients with these grades of TKA who had a KPS score of < 90 (40% vs 22%; p = 0.004). Conclusion. A TKA balanced with robotic assistance to within 1 mm of difference between the medial and lateral sides in both flexion and extension had a higher KPS score one year postoperatively. Despite accurate ligament balance information, a robotic system could not guarantee excellent pain relief. Patient expectations and mental status also significantly affected the perceived success of TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):67–73

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively. Methods. A per protocol analysis of 76 patients, 43 of whom underwent TKA and 34 of whom underwent bi-UKA, was performed from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diaries kept by the patients recorded pain, function, and the use of analgesics daily throughout the first week and weekly between the second and sixth weeks. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, and at three months and one year postoperatively. Data were also compared longitudinally and a subgroup analysis was conducted, stratified by preoperative PROM status. Results. Both operations were shown to offer comparable outcomes, with no significant differences between the groups across all timepoints and outcome measures. Both groups also had similarly low rates of complications. Subgroup analysis for preoperative psychological state, activity levels, and BMI showed no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA offered similar early clinical outcomes and rates of complications to a mechanically aligned TKA, both in the immediate postoperative period and up to one year following surgery. Further work is required to identify which patients with osteoarthritis of the knee will derive benefit from a cruciate-sparing bi-UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1561–1570

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery. Methods. A total of 76 patients (34 bi-UKA and 42 TKA patients) were analyzed in a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Flat ground shod gait analysis was performed preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Knee flexion moment was calculated from motion capture markers and force plates. The same setup determined proprioception outcomes during a joint position sense test and one-leg standing. Surgery allocation, surgeon, and secondary outcomes were analyzed for prediction of the primary outcome from a binary regression model. Results. Both interventions were shown to be effective treatment options, with no significant differences shown between interventions for the primary outcome of this study (18/35 (51.4%) biphasic TKA patients vs 20/31 (64.5%) biphasic bi-UKA patients; p = 0.558). All outcomes were compared to an age-matched, healthy cohort that outperformed both groups, indicating residual deficits exists following surgery. Logistic regression analysis of primary outcome with secondary outcomes indicated that the most significant predictor of postoperative biphasic knee moments was preoperative knee moment profile and trochlear degradation (Outerbridge) (R. 2. = 0.381; p = 0.002, p = 0.046). A separate regression of alignment against primary outcome indicated significant bi-UKA femoral and tibial axial alignment (R. 2. = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R. 2. = 0.252; p = 0.016). The bi-UKA group showed a significant increased ability in the proprioceptive joint position test, but no difference was found in more dynamic testing of proprioception. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted bi-UKA demonstrated equivalence to TKA in achieving a biphasic gait pattern after surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Both treatments are successful at improving gait, but both leave the patients with a functional limitation that is not present in healthy age-matched controls. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;103-B(4):433–443

Aims

The aim was to assess whether robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had greater knee-specific outcomes, improved fulfilment of expectations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared with manual TKA (mTKA).

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) planning and to determine the value of a formal radiologist’s report of these studies.

We performed a prospective, randomised controlled trial of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty comparing the performance of the Acrobot system with conventional surgery. A total of 27 patients (28 knees) awaiting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to have the operation performed conventionally or with the assistance of the Acrobot. The primary outcome measurement was the angle of tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane, measured by CT. Other secondary parameters were evaluated and are reported.

All of the Acrobot group had tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane within 2° of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy. While the operations took longer, no adverse effects were noted, and there was a trend towards improvement in performance with increasing accuracy based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and American Knee Society scores at six weeks and three months. The Acrobot device allows the surgeon to reproduce a pre-operative plan more reliably than is possible using conventional techniques which may have clinical advantages.

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. Methods. 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). 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-assisted TKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA to TKA 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 to TKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary robotic TKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):680–687

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Overall, 104 (80%) patients of the original 130 who received surgery were available at five years (55 robotic, 49 manual). Both procedures reported successful results over all outcomes. At five years, there were no statistical differences between the groups in any of the patient reported or clinical outcomes. There was a lower reintervention rate in the robotic arm-assisted group with 0% requiring further surgery compared with six (9%) of the manual group requiring additional surgical intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion. This study has shown excellent clinical outcomes in both groups with no statistical or clinical differences in the patient-reported outcome measures. The notable difference was the lower reintervention rate at five years for roboticarm-assisted UKA when compared with a manual approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1088–1095

Aims. The primary aim was to assess whether robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had a greater early knee-specific outcome when compared to manual TKA (mTKA). Secondary aims were to assess whether rTKA was associated with improved expectation fulfilment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared to mTKA. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was undertaken, and patients were randomized to either mTKA or rTKA. The primary objective was functional improvement at six months. Overall, 100 patients were randomized, 50 to each group, of whom 46 rTKA and 41 mTKA patients were available for review at six months following surgery. There were no differences between the two groups. Results. There was no difference between rTKA and mTKA groups at six months according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) functional score (mean difference (MD) 3.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.6 to 13.1); p = 0.425). There was a greater improvement in the WOMAC pain score at two months (MD 9.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 18.3); p = 0.037) in the rTKA group, although by six months no significant difference was observed (MD 6.7 (95% CI -3.6 to 17.1); p = 0.198). The rTKA group were more likely to achieve a minimal important change in their WOMAC pain score when compared to the mTKA group at two months (n = 36 (78.3%) vs n = 24 (58.5%); p = 0.047) and at six months (n = 40 (87.0%) vs n = 29 (68.3%); p = 0.036). There was no difference in satisfaction between the rTKA group (97.8%; n = 45/46) and the mTKA group (87.8%; n = 36/41) at six months (p = 0.096). There were no differences in EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) utility gain (p ≥ 0.389) or fulfilment of patient expectation (p ≥ 0.054) between the groups. Conclusion. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in the change in WOMAC function between mTKA and rTKA at six months. rTKA was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving a clinically important change in knee pain at two and six months, but no differences in knee-specific function, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, or expectation fulfilment were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):961–970

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-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) promises accurate implant placement with the potential of improved survival and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the current evidence for robotic-assisted UKA and describe the outcome in terms of implant positioning, range of movement (ROM), function and survival, and the types of robot and implants that are currently used. Materials and Methods. A search of PubMed and Medline was performed in October 2018 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee”, and “surgery”. The criteria for inclusion was any study describing the use of robotic UKA and reporting implant positioning, ROM, function, and survival for clinical, cadaveric, or dry bone studies. Results. A total of 528 articles were initially identified from the databases and reference lists. Following full text screening, 38 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. In all, 20 studies reported on implant positioning, 18 on functional outcomes, 16 on survivorship, and six on ROM. The Mako (Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey) robot was used in 32 studies (84%), the BlueBelt Navio (Blue Belt Technologies, Plymouth, Minnesota) in three (8%), the Sculptor RGA (Stanmore Implants, Borehamwood United Kingdom) in two (5%), and the Acrobot (The Acrobot Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom) in one study (3%). The most commonly used implant was the Restoris MCK (Stryker). Nine studies (24%) did not report the implant that was used. The pooled survivorship at six years follow-up was 96%. However, when assessing survival according to implant design, survivorship of an inlay (all-polyethylene) tibial implant was 89%, whereas that of an onlay (metal-backed) implant was 97% at six years (odds ratio 3.66, 95% confidence interval 20.7 to 6.46, p < 0.001). Conclusion. There is little description of the choice of implant when reporting robotic-assisted UKA, which is essential when assessing survivorship, in the literature. Implant positioning with robotic-assisted UKA is more accurate and more reproducible than that performed manually and may offer better functional outcomes, but whether this translates into improved implant survival in the mid- to longer-term remains to be seen. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:838–847

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. Ideal component sizing may be difficult to achieve in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Anatomical variants, incremental implant size, and a reduced surgical exposure may lead to over- or under-sizing of the components. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of UKA sizing with robotic-assisted techniques versus a conventional surgical technique. Methods. Three groups of 93 medial UKAs were assessed. The first group was performed by a conventional technique, the second group with an image-free robotic-assisted system (Image-Free group), and the last group with an image-based robotic arm-assisted system, using a preoperative CT scan (Image-Based group). There were no demographic differences between groups. We compared six parameters on postoperative radiographs to assess UKA sizing. Incorrect sizing was defined by an over- or under-sizing greater than 3 mm. Results. There was a higher rate of tibial under-sizing posteriorly in the conventional group compared to robotic-assisted groups (47.3% (n = 44) in conventional group, 29% (n = 27) in Image-Free group, 6.5% (n = 6) in Image-Based group; p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of femoral under-sizing posteriorly (30.1% (n = 28) in conventional group, 7.5% (n = 7) in Image-Free group, 12.9% (n = 12) in Image-Based group; p < 0.001). The posterior femoral offset was more often increased in the conventional group, especially in comparison to the Image-Based group (43% (n = 40) in conventional group, 30.1% (n = 28) in Image-Free group, 8.6% (n = 8) in Image-Based group; p < 0.001). There was no significant overhang of the femoral or tibial implant in any groups. Conclusion. Robotic-assisted surgical techniques for medial UKA decrease the risk of tibial and femoral under-sizing, particularly with an image-based system using a preoperative CT scan. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):610–618

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery. Methods. An analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups. Results. The pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Robotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1511–1518

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 planning. The 3D US is radiation-free and offers numerous clinical opportunities for bone visualization rapidly during clinic visits, to enable preoperative planning with implant sizing. There is potential to extend its application to 3D dynamic ligament balancing, and intraoperative registration for use with robots and navigation systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):81–86

Aims. It remains controversial whether patellofemoral joint pathology is a contraindication to lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative radiological degenerative changes and alignment on patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs) after lateral UKA. Secondarily, the influence of lateral UKA on the alignment of the patellofemoral joint was studied. Methods. A consecutive series of patients who underwent robotic arm-assisted fixed-bearing lateral UKA with at least two-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Radiological evaluation was conducted to obtain a Kellgren Lawrence (KL) grade, an Altman score, and alignment measurements for each knee. Postoperative PROMs were assessed using the Kujala (Anterior Knee Pain Scale) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS JR), and satisfaction levels. Results. A total of 140 knees (130 patients) were identified for analysis. At mean 4.1 years (2.0 to 8.5) follow-up, good to excellent Kujala scores were reported. The presence of mild to moderate preoperative patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis had no impact on these scores (KL grade 0 vs 1 to 3, p = 0.203; grade 0 to 1 vs 2 to 3, p = 0.674). Comparable scores were reported by patients with osteoarthritis (Altman score of ≥ 2) evident on either the medial or lateral patellofemoral joint facet (medial, p = 0.600 and lateral, p = 0.950). Patients with abnormal patellar congruence and tilt angles (≥ 17° and ≥ 14°, respectively) reported good to excellent Kujala scores. Furthermore, lateral UKA resulted in improvements to patellofemoral alignment. Conclusion. This is the first study demonstrating that mild to moderate preoperative radiological degenerative changes and malalignment of the patellofemoral joint are not associated with poor patient-reported outcomes at mid-term follow-up after lateral fixed-bearing UKA. Our data suggest that this may be explained by realignment of the patella and thereby redistribution of loads across the patellofemoral joint. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):727–735

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 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

Aims

The surgical target for optimal implant positioning in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty remains the subject of ongoing discussion. One of the proposed targets is to recreate the knee’s functional behaviour as per its pre-diseased state. The aim of this study was to optimize implant positioning, starting from mechanical alignment (MA), toward restoring the pre-diseased status, including ligament strain and kinematic patterns, in a patient population.