Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Do you wish to request the book?
Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
2019
Overview
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.
