Suppr超能文献

机器人手臂辅助与传统单髁膝关节置换术中胫骨组件定位的准确性。

Accuracy of tibial component positioning in the robotic arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

作者信息

Thilak Jai, Thadi Mohan, Mane Prajwal P, Sharma Anubhav, Mohan Vipin, Babu Balu C

机构信息

Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India.

出版信息

J Orthop. 2020 Aug 31;22:367-371. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.022. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Our study aims to determine the planned accuracy of the tibial component placement in robotic arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus the conventional jig based UKA of the initial cases done in India for the first time with this particular robotic system.Materials & Methods: Study group 1 consisted of patients who underwent robotic arm (MAKO, Stryker, USA) assisted UKA. Group 2 consists of patients who underwent a standard conventional jig based (Oxford knee, Biomet, UK). Post-operative radiographs were taken to determine the Tibial Implant position and orientation which were compared to their preoperative plan respectively by two independent observers. The mean error value was obtained for both study groups respectively and compared to determine the accuracy of the post-operative tibial implant placement.

RESULTS

In the Robotic arm assisted UKA, the deviation of post-operative varus angle from preoperative planned angle was about 0.43° and post-operative Tibial slope alignment differed from preoperative plan was 0.41°. In the Conventional UKA group post-operative varus angle differed from preoperative planned angle by about 2.12° and post-operative Tibial slope alignment deviation from preoperative plan was 2.47°.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic arm assisted system was more accurate compared to the conventional jig-based technique in achieving the planned orientation and alignment of the tibial implant in the initial learning phase of this particular Robotic System used for the first time in India.

MESH TERMS

partial knee replacement, robotic assisted surgery.

摘要

背景

我们的研究旨在确定在印度首次使用这种特定机器人系统进行的初次病例中,机器人手臂辅助单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)与传统夹具辅助UKA相比,胫骨组件放置的计划准确性。

材料与方法

研究组1由接受机器人手臂(美国史赛克公司的MAKO)辅助UKA的患者组成。组2由接受基于标准传统夹具(英国百美公司的牛津膝关节)的患者组成。术后拍摄X线片以确定胫骨植入物的位置和方向,两位独立观察者分别将其与术前计划进行比较。分别获得两个研究组的平均误差值,并进行比较以确定术后胫骨植入物放置的准确性。

结果

在机器人手臂辅助UKA中,术后内翻角度与术前计划角度的偏差约为0.43°,术后胫骨坡度对齐与术前计划的差异为0.41°。在传统UKA组中,术后内翻角度与术前计划角度相差约2.12°,术后胫骨坡度对齐与术前计划的偏差为2.47°。

结论

在印度首次使用这种特定机器人系统的初始学习阶段,与传统的基于夹具的技术相比,机器人手臂辅助系统在实现胫骨植入物的计划方向和对齐方面更准确。

医学主题词

部分膝关节置换,机器人辅助手术

相似文献

1
Accuracy of tibial component positioning in the robotic arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
J Orthop. 2020 Aug 31;22:367-371. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.022. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.
3
The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.
Bone Joint J. 2018 Aug;100-B(8):1033-1042. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0040.R1.
4
An Experienced Surgeon Can Meet or Exceed Robotic Accuracy in Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Aug 21;101(16):1479-1484. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00906.
9
Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):141-6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0977-5. Epub 2009 Jul 11.
10
Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1232-1240. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5. Epub 2018 Jul 31.

引用本文的文献

2
The Deep-MCL Line: A Reliable Anatomical Landmark to Optimize the Tibial Cut in UKA.
J Pers Med. 2023 May 19;13(5):855. doi: 10.3390/jpm13050855.
3
How reproducible are clinical measurements in robotic knee surgery?
J Exp Orthop. 2023 Mar 24;10(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40634-023-00582-3.
4
Image-based robot assisted bicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty.
SICOT J. 2022;8:48. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2022048. Epub 2022 Dec 16.
5
Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: An Indian Perspective.
Indian J Orthop. 2021 Nov 12;56(4):655-663. doi: 10.1007/s43465-021-00555-7. eCollection 2022 Apr.

本文引用的文献

2
Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications and failure modes.
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Aug 1;3(8):442-448. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170060. eCollection 2018 Aug.
3
Unicompartmental knee replacement - Current perspectives.
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan-Mar;9(1):17-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.11.013. Epub 2017 Nov 28.
4
Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Nov;24(11):3482-3495. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4305-9. Epub 2016 Sep 6.
5
Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview.
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 May-Jun;45(4):202-11.
6
Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today?
J Arthroplasty. 2016 May;31(5):1016-21. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030. Epub 2015 Dec 7.
7
Robotically Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty with a Handheld Image-Free Sculpting Tool.
Orthop Clin North Am. 2016 Jan;47(1):29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2015.08.024.
8
Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(1):47-56. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1124018. Epub 2015 Dec 21.
9
Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty.
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(6):727-35. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1086264. Epub 2015 Sep 12.
10
Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals.
Acta Orthop. 2014 Aug;85(4):342-7. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.920990. Epub 2014 May 21.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验