Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sport Medicine, Lyon North University Hospital, Hôpital de La Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 103 Grande Rue de la Croix Rousse, 69004, Lyon, France.
Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, 33 The Avenue, Windsor, 3181, Australia.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Mar;29(3):931-938. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06051-z. Epub 2020 May 10.
The hypotheses were that firstly there is few early specific complications due to the use of a robotic-assisted system for unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and secondly there are less revisions and complications after robotic-assisted UKA than after conventional UKA.
200 robotic-assisted UKA (175 patients) and 191 conventional UKA (179 patients) were performed between 2013 and 2018 from the same center. Revisions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, functional and radiological results were collected at the most recent follow-up.
At the most recent follow-up (≥ 1 year), revision rates were 4% (n = 8/200) for robotic-assisted UKA and 11% (n = 21/191) for conventional UKA (p = 0.014). Reoperation rates without implant removal were comparable in the robotic and conventional group (7.3% vs 8.6%). Complication rates for stiffness (4.7% vs 4.2%) and infection (1% vs 1.6%) were comparable in both groups. There was no specific complication related to the robotic-assisted system (no soft tissue or bone lesion caused by the use of the robotic-assistance and no complication related to the use of navigation pins). The KSS function scores were higher following robotic-assisted UKA (p = 0.01). Satisfaction rates and contralateral OA were comparable in the two groups.
No complications due to the robotic-assisted system were found in this study. There was no difference in the general complications rate between both groups. Robotic-assisted UKA has a lower revision rate compared to conventional technique UKA at the short-term follow-up.
III.
This is the first paper comparing revision rate and clinical outcome between UKA performed using the NAVIO robotic system and a conventional technique and searching for specific complication related to the use of the NAVIO robotic system.
假设使用机器人辅助系统进行单髁膝关节置换术（UKA）不会导致早期特定并发症，其次，机器人辅助 UKA 的翻修率和并发症少于传统 UKA。
2013 年至 2018 年，同一中心共进行了 200 例机器人辅助 UKA（175 例患者）和 191 例传统 UKA（179 例患者）。在最近的随访中收集了翻修、术中及术后并发症、功能和影像学结果。
在最近的随访（≥1 年）中，机器人辅助 UKA 的翻修率为 4%（n=8/200），传统 UKA 为 11%（n=21/191）（p=0.014）。机器人组和传统组未行假体取出的再手术率相当（7.3% vs 8.6%）。两组僵硬（4.7% vs 4.2%）和感染（1% vs 1.6%）的并发症发生率相当。未发现与机器人辅助系统相关的特定并发症（无因使用机器人辅助系统导致的软组织或骨损伤，也无与导航销使用相关的并发症）。机器人辅助 UKA 的 KSS 功能评分更高（p=0.01）。两组的满意度和对侧 OA 发生率相当。
本研究未发现与机器人辅助系统相关的并发症。两组的一般并发症发生率无差异。机器人辅助 UKA 的短期随访翻修率低于传统技术 UKA。
III 级
这是第一篇比较 NAVIO 机器人系统与传统技术行 UKA 的翻修率和临床结果，并寻找与 NAVIO 机器人系统使用相关的特定并发症的论文。
