Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose The primary objective of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for robotic-arm assisted TKA through assessments of operative times, surgical team comfort levels, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications. Secondary objectives were to compare accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment in conventional jig-based TKA versus robotic-arm assisted TKA. Methods This prospective cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based TKAs followed by 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted TKAs performed by a single surgeon. Independent observers recorded surrogate markers of the learning curve including operative times, stress levels amongst the surgical team using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) questionnaire, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and complications within 30 days of surgery. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analyses were used to assess learning curves for operative time and STAI scores in robotic TKA. Results Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with a learning curve of seven cases for operative times ( p  = 0.01) and surgical team anxiety levels ( p  = 0.02). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (n.s.) limb alignment (n.s.) posterior condylar offset ratio (n.s.) posterior tibial slope (n.s.) and joint line restoration (n.s.). Robotic TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning ( p  < 0.001) and limb alignment ( p  < 0.001) with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional manual TKA. Conclusion Implementation of robotic-arm assisted TKA led to increased operative times and heightened levels of anxiety amongst the surgical team for the initial seven cases but there was no learning curve for achieving the planned implant positioning. Robotic-arm assisted TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA. The findings of this study will enable clinicians and healthcare professionals to better understand the impact of implementing robotic TKA on the surgical workflow, assist the safe integration of this procedure into surgical practice, and facilitate theatre planning and scheduling of operative cases during the learning phase. Level of evidence II.

Purpose The aim of this case–control study was to compare implant position and revision rate for UKA, performed with either a robotic-assisted system or with conventional technique. Methods Eighty UKA (57 medial, 23 lateral) were performed with robotic assistance (BlueBelt Navio system) between 2013 and 2017. These patients were matched with 80 patients undergoing UKA using the same prosthesis, implanted using conventional technique. The sagittal and coronal component position was assessed on postoperative radiographs. The revision rate was reported at last follow-up. Results The mean follow-up was 19.7 months ± 9 for the robotic-assisted group, and 24.2 months ± 16 for the control group. The rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers (± 2°) was significantly higher in the control group than in the robotic-assisted group for both lateral UKA (26% in robotic group versus 61% in control group; p  = 0.018) and medial UKA (16% versus 32%, resp.; p  = 0.038). The coronal and sagittal tibial baseplate position had significantly less outliers (± 3°) in the robotic-assisted group, than in the control group. Revision rates were: 5% ( n  = 4/80) for robotic assisted UKA and 9% ( n  = 7/80) for conventional UKA (n.s.). The reasons for revision were different between groups, with 86% of revisions in the control group occurring in association with component malposition or limb malalignment, compared with none in the robotic-assisted group. Conclusion Robotic-assisted UKA has a lower rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers, as well as a lower revision rate, compared to conventional technique. The accuracy of implant positioning is improved by this robotic-assisted system. Level of evidence Level of evidence III. Retrospective case–control study Clinical relevance This is the first paper comparing implant position, clinical outcome, and revision rate for UKA performed using the Navio robotic system with a control group.

Purpose An anatomo-functional implant positioning (AFIP) technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) could restore physiological ligament balance (symmetric gap in extension, asymmetric gap in flexion). The purposes were to compare (1) ligament balancing in extension and flexion after TKA in the AFIP group, (2) TKA alignment, implant positioning and patellar tracking between AFIP and adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) techniques, (3) clinical outcomes between both groups at 12 months. Methods All robotic-assisted TKA with an AFIP technique were included ( n  = 40). Exclusion criteria were genu valgum (HKA angle > 183°), extra-articular deformity more than 10°, and patellar maltracking (high-grade J-sign). One control patient with a TKA implanted by an aMA technique was matched for each case, based on age, body mass index, sex, and knee alignment. Ligament balancing (medial and lateral gaps in millimeters) in full extension and at 90° of flexion after TKA in the AFIP group was assessed with the robotic system. TKA alignment (HKA angle), implants positioning (femoral and tibial coronal axis, tibial slope, joint-line orientation), patellar tracking (patellar tilt and translation) and the Knee Society Score (KSS) at 6 and 12 months were compared between both groups. The ligament balancing was compared using a t test for paired samples in the AFIP group. The radiographic measurements and KSS scores were compared between groups using a t test for independent samples. Results In the AFIP group, there was no significant difference between the medial and lateral gap laxity in extension (NS). A significant opening of the lateral gap was observed in flexion compared to extension (mean: + 2.9 mm; p  < 0.0001). The mean postoperative HKA angle was comparable between both groups (177.3° ± 2.1 in the AFIP group vs 176.8° ± 3.2; NS). In the AFIP group, the femoral anatomy was restored (90.9° ± 1.6) and the tibial varus was partially corrected (87.4° ± 1.8). The improvement of Knee and Function KSS at 6 months was better in the AFIP group (59.3 ± 11.9 and 51.7 ± 20, respectively, versus 49.3 ± 9.7 and 20.8 ± 13; p  < 0.001). Conclusion The AFIP concept allowed the restoration of the native knee alignment and a natural functional ligament pattern. With a more physiological target for ligament balancing, the AFIP technique had equivalent clinical outcomes at 12 months compared to aMA, with a faster recovery. Level of evidence III retrospective therapeutic case control series.

Purpose The alignment obtained after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) influences the risk of failure. Kinematic alignment after UKA based on Cartier angle restauration is likely to improve clinical outcomes compared with mechanical alignment. The purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of implant alignment and native knee restoration after UKA using the conventional techniques on clinical outcomes. Methods This retrospective study included 144 medial UKA patients from 2015 to 2020. Radiographic measurements were performed pre- and postoperatively. Outliers were defined as follows: Δ Cartier > 3° (difference between the preoperative and postoperative Cartier angle); Δ MPTA (Medial Proximal Tibial angle) and postoperative TCA (Tibial Coronal component Angle) > 3° (difference between the positioning of the tibial implant and the preoperative proximal tibial deformity). The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the International Knee Society (IKS) Function and Knee score, the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and the Subjective Knee Value (SKV) were evaluated. A Student t test or a non-parametric Wilcoxon test was used for non-normal data to compare pre- and postoperative values for functional scores and angular measurements. The correlation of postoperative angles with functional outcomes was assessed by the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Results During the inclusion period, 214 patients underwent medial UKA, 71 patients were excluded, and 19 were lost to follow-up leaving 124 patients with 144 knees (20 bilateral UKA) included for analysis with a mean follow-up of 54.7 months ± 22.1 (24–95). The Δ Cartier was significantly correlated with IKS function ( R 2  = 0.06, p  < 0.001) and FJS ( R 2  = 0.05, p  < 0.01) scores. The Δ preoperative MPTA–TCA was significantly correlated ( p  < 0.001) with KOOS ( R 2  = 0.38), IKS Knee ( R 2  = 0.17), IKS function ( R 2  = 0.34), SKV ( R 2  = 0.08), and FJS ( R 2  = 0.37) scores. In subgroup analysis, non-outliers (< 3°) for Δ preoperative MPTA–TCA had better KOOS score (Δ = 23.5, p  < 0.001) and IKS Function (Δ = 17.7, p  < 0.001) compared to outliers (> 3°) patients. Conclusion Functional results after medial UKA can be influenced by implant alignment in the coronal plane with slight clinical improvement when positioning the tibial implant close to the preoperative tibial deformity, rather than by restoring the Cartier angle. This series suggests the interest of a more personalized alignment strategy, but these results will have to be confirmed by other controlled studies. Level of evidence IV, retrospective case series.

Purpose Implant malpositioning, joint line (JL) lowering, and malalignment have been identified as risk factors for implant failure in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The aims of this study were to compare the accuracy of implant positioning in robotic-assisted UKA versus conventional UKA in a large cohort and examine the correlation with implant survival at mid-term follow-up. Methods This retrospective study included 356 medial UKAs from 2011 to 2019. The radiological measurements performed were coronal positioning of tibial implant according to Cartier angle (Δ Cartier), posterior tibial slope (PTS), residual hip-knee-ankle (HKA), and JL restoration. Outliers were defined as follows: post-operative HKA < 175° or > 180°, Δ Cartier > 3° or <  − 3°, JL change ≥ 2 mm, and PTS < 2° or > 8°. The survival probability was reported at the last follow-up. Results Out of the 356 knees included, 159 underwent conventional UKA (44.5%) and 197 (55.5%) robotic-assisted UKA. The mean follow-up was 61.3 months ± 24.0. Robotic UKA was associated with better accuracy compared to conventional UKA in relation to HKA (67% vs 56%, p  = 0.023), JL restoration (70% vs 44%, p  < 0.0001), PTS (83% vs 55%, p  < 0.0001), and tibial varus restoration (65% vs 55%, p  = 0.049). Implant survival in the robotic group was found to be superior at the last follow-up (96.4% versus 87.3% at 9 years, p  = 0.004). Conclusion Robotic assistance in patients undergoing medial UKA was associated with better accuracy compared to conventional UKA with respect to tibial implant positioning, post-operative limb alignment, and JL restoration. This was translated in improved survival at mid-term follow-up favouring the robotic group.

Objectives Implant placement errors remain a persistent challenge, leading to complications such as peri-implant bone loss, neurosensory issues, and, in severe cases, implant failure. This study evaluates the prevalence and characteristics of dental implant positioning errors in patients treated at the Dental University Hospital. Methods: A sample of 500 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans was used to assess implants for positioning errors, including thread exposure, proximity to anatomical structures, and violations of inter-implant and implant–tooth distances. Results: A total of 56.6% of the implants exhibited positioning errors, with the maxillary posterior region being the most commonly affected area (51.6%). The most frequent errors observed were thread exposure (37.7%) and implant proximity to the maxillary sinus (27.7%). Statistical analysis revealed significant correlations between implant positioning errors and anatomical location, underscoring the need for meticulous preoperative planning and advanced imaging. While factors such as patient age, implant length, and diameter were analyzed, no statistically significant differences were found in error prevalence based on sex or demographic variables. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of combining clinical expertise with advanced imaging modalities like CBCT to minimize implant positioning errors and improve patient outcomes. Future research should focus on refining surgical techniques and evaluating the impact of the implants’ design and patient-specific factors on the accuracy of placements.

The implantation of total knee replacements is an effective treatment for advanced degenerative knee joint diseases. Implant positioning relative to the bones affects the loads occurring in the artificial joint, joint stability, and postoperative functionality. Variance in implant positioning during the surgical implantation of a total knee replacement cannot be entirely ruled out. By simulating implant malpositioning in an experimental setting, particularly critical cases of malalignment can be identified, from which guidelines for orthopedic surgeons can be derived. The AMTI VIVO™ six degree of freedom joint simulator allows reproducible preclinical testing of joint endoprostheses under specific kinematic and loading conditions. It features a virtual ligament model that defines up to 100 ligament fibers between the articulating components. This paper presents a method to investigate the effect of different implant positions on the biomechanics of the knee after total knee arthroplasty. For this, the VIVO joint simulator requires no modification of the physical setup by moving virtual ligament insertion points relative to the bone. As a proof of concept, exemplary shifts and rotations of the femoral and tibial implant components are performed, and dynamic results are compared to a musculoskeletal multibody digital twin and findings from the literature. Video Abstract.

Purpose To compare the efficacy of personalized osteotomies with that of standard osteotomies in treating medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Methods The clinical data of 96 patients who were diagnosed with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in our group between 2019 and 2023 were retrospectively analysed on the basis of preoperative and postoperative radiological measurements. The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), forgotten joint score (FJS), and Lysholm knee score scale (Lysholm) were used to assess the clinical outcome, and complications were observed and recorded. Results According to the relevant criteria, 84 of 96 patients were included in this study. All patients were followed for a mean of 31 (range 22–55) months. Fifty-one patients underwent personalized osteotomy procedures, and thirty-three underwent standard osteotomy procedures. The postoperative KOOS Pain ( P  < 0.0001), KOOS Symptoms ( P  < 0.0001), KOOS ADL ( P  < 0.0001), KOOS Sport ( P  = 0.0023), KOOS QoL ( P  < 0.0001), Lysholm ( P  < 0.0001) and FJS ( P  < 0.0001) scores were higher than those in the standard osteotomy group. Nevertheless, postoperative extension ( P  = 0.2636) and postoperative flexion ( P  = 0.3554) were not significantly different. Conclusion This was a single-centre, retrospective, short follow-up study with several limitations. However, on the basis of the results of the present study, we believe that the function of the knee after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) is affected by the direction of tibial osteotomy. We believe that better clinical results may be obtained when the tibial implant is placed near the preoperative tibial deformity. Level of evidence : Level IV; retrospective case series.

IntroductionThe Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) has been proven to be an effective treatment for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee joint. New instrumentation has been introduced to improve the reproducibility of implant positioning and to minimize bone loss during tibial resection (Oxford Microplasty; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA).MethodsTo assess the effect of the new instrumentation, we retrospectively evaluated the postoperative radiographs and surgical records of 300 OUKAs in three consecutive cohorts of patients. The first cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive implantations of the OUKA using the conventional phase III instrumentation, the second cohort consists of the 100 most recent minimal invasive OUKA with the conventional phase III instrumentation and the third cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive OUKA using the new Oxford Microplasty instrumentation.ResultsMean bearing thickness was statistically significant and lower in OUKA with use of the updated instrumentation than with the conventional instrumentation (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04). Additionally, statistically significant and more femoral components were aligned within the accepted range of tolerance in both the coronal and the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group A (p = 0.029 and p = 0.038) and in the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group B (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe new modified instrumentation seems to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of malalignment of the femoral component in the coronal and in the sagittal plane compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation. Furthermore, the instrumentation is also effective in determining an adequate level of tibial resection and thus avoiding unnecessary bone loss.

Background For improved outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) correct implant fitting and positioning are crucial. In order to facilitate a best possible implant fitting and positioning patient-specific systems have been developed. However, whether or not these systems allow for better implant fitting and positioning has yet to be elucidated. For this reason, the aim was to analyse the novel patient-specific cruciate retaining knee replacement system iTotal™ CR G2 that utilizes custom-made implants and instruments for its ability to facilitate accurate implant fitting and positioning including correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA). Methods We assessed radiographic results of 106 patients who were treated with the second generation of a patient-specific cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty using iTotal™ CR G2 (ConforMIS Inc.) for tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) using custom-made implants and instruments. The implant fit and positioning as well as the correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) and restoration of the joint line were determined using pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses. Results On average, HKA was corrected from 174.4° ± 4.6° preoperatively to 178.8° ± 2.2° postoperatively and the coronal femoro-tibial angle was adjusted on average 4.4°. The measured preoperative tibial slope was 5.3° ± 2.2° (mean +/− SD) and the average postoperative tibial slope was 4.7° ± 1.1° on lateral views. The joint line was well preserved with an average modified Insall-Salvati index of 1.66 ± 0.16 pre- and 1.67 ± 0.16 postoperatively. The overall accuracy of fit of implant components was decent with a measured medial overhang of more than 1 mm (1.33 mm ± 0.32 mm) in 4 cases only. Further, a lateral overhang of more than 1 mm (1.8 mm ± 0.63) (measured in the anterior-posterior radiographs) was observed in 11 cases, with none of the 106 patients showing femoral notching. Conclusion The patient-specific iTotal™ CR G2 total knee replacement system facilitated a proper fitting and positioning of the implant components. Moreover, a good restoration of the leg axis towards neutral alignment was achieved as planned. Nonetheless, further clinical follow-up studies are necessary to validate our findings and to determine the long-term impact of using this patient- specific system.