School of Medicine, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Indiana University Health Physicians Orthopedics at IU Health Saxony Hospital, Fishers, Indiana.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Aug 21;101(16):1479-1484. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00906.
Reports in the literature indicate that implant placement is more accurate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA); however, these studies have not always accounted for surgeon experience. The purpose of the present study was to compare the accuracy of tibial component alignment in UKA between an experienced high-volume surgeon and the published data on robotic-assisted surgery.
The radiographs made before and after 128 consecutive medial UKAs performed manually by a single surgeon using a cemented fixed-bearing implant were reviewed. Native tibial and tibial implant slope and varus alignment of the tibial implant were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral and anteroposterior radiographs, respectively. The percentages of knees in which the postoperative measurements were within preoperative targets and the root mean square (RMS) error rates between the planned and achieved targets were compared with published robotic-assisted-UKA data.
In the present study, the proportion of manual UKAs in which the tibial component alignment was within the preoperative target was 66% (85 of 128), which exceeded published values in a study comparing robotic (58%) with manual (41%) UKA. The RMS error for tibial component alignment in the present study (1.48°) was less than published RMS error rates for robotic UKAs (range, 1.8° to 5°). Fifty-eight percent (74) of the 128 study UKAs were within the surgeon's preoperative goal for tibial slope, which was closer to the published value of 80% for robotic UKAs than is the published rate of 22% for manual UKAs. The RMS error for tibial slope in the study UKAs (1.50°) was smaller than the published RMS error rates for tibial slope in robotic UKAs (range, 1.6° to 1.9°).
Accurate implant alignment is important in UKA. In this study, an experienced surgeon achieved or exceeded robotic accuracy of tibial implant alignment in UKA. However, the relationship between implant position and patient outcomes is unknown, and a consensus on ideal surgical targets for optimal implant survivorship has yet to be established.
Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
文献报道称,机器人辅助单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)可提高植入物的放置精度;然而,这些研究并不总是考虑到外科医生的经验。本研究旨在比较经验丰富的高容量外科医生和机器人辅助手术发表数据之间 UKA 胫骨组件对线的准确性。
回顾了一名外科医生使用骨水泥固定轴承植入物连续进行的 128 例内侧 UKA 的术前和术后的 X 线片。分别在术前和术后的侧位和前后位 X 线片上测量胫骨的原始和胫骨植入物斜率以及胫骨植入物的内翻对线。比较术后测量值与术前目标的百分比和计划与实现目标之间的均方根(RMS)误差率与发表的机器人辅助 UKA 数据。
在本研究中,手动 UKA 中胫骨组件对线在术前目标内的比例为 66%(128 例中有 85 例),超过了比较机器人(58%)与手动(41%)UKA 的研究中的发表值。本研究中胫骨组件对线的 RMS 误差(1.48°)小于发表的机器人 UKA 的 RMS 误差率(范围 1.8°至 5°)。128 例研究 UKA 中有 58%(74 例)在外科医生的术前胫骨斜率目标内,这比机器人 UKA 的发表值 80%更接近,而手动 UKA 的发表值为 22%。研究 UKA 中胫骨斜率的 RMS 误差(1.50°)小于机器人 UKA 中胫骨斜率的 RMS 误差率(范围 1.6°至 1.9°)。
UKA 中准确的植入物对线很重要。在这项研究中,一位经验丰富的外科医生达到或超过了机器人在 UKA 中胫骨植入物对线的准确性。然而,植入物位置与患者结果之间的关系尚不清楚,并且尚未就最佳植入物存活率的理想手术目标达成共识。
治疗水平 IV。有关证据水平的完整说明,请参阅作者说明。