A novel handheld robotic-assisted system for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: surgical technique and early survivorship

被引:0
作者
Andrew K. Battenberg
Nathan A. Netravali
Jess H. Lonner
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson University,Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute
[2] Smith and Nephew,undefined
来源
Journal of Robotic Surgery | 2020年 / 14卷
关键词
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Robotic-assisted surgery; Surgical technique; Survivorship; NAVIO;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Technology, including robotics, has been developed for use in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to improve accuracy and precision of bone preparation, implant positioning, and soft tissue balance. The NAVIO™ System (Smith and Nephew, Pittsburgh, PA, United States) is a handheld robotic system that assists surgeons in planning implant positioning based on an individual patient’s anatomy and then preparing the bone surface to accurately achieve the plan. The surgical technique is presented herein. In addition, initial results are presented for 128 patients (mean age 64.7 years; 57.8% male) undergoing UKA with NAVIO. After a mean of follow-up period of 2.3 years, overall survivorship of the knee implant was 99.2% (95% confidence interval 94.6–99.9%). There was one revision encountered during the study, which was due to persistent soft tissue pain, without evidence of loosening, subsidence, malposition or infection. These initial results suggest a greater survivorship than achieved in the same follow-up time intervals in national registries and cohort studies, though further follow-up is needed to confirm whether this difference is maintained at longer durations.
引用
收藏
页码:55 / 60
页数:5
相关论文
共 116 条
  • [1] Robertsson O(1999)Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative: 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses Acta Orthop Scand 70 170-175
  • [2] Borgquist L(2006)Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty J Arthroplast 21 108-115
  • [3] Knutson K(2012)Factors affecting the postoperative limb alignment and clinical outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty J Arthroplast 27 1210-1215
  • [4] Lewold S(2017)Have the causes of revision for total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties changed during the past two decades? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475 1874-1886
  • [5] Lidgren L(2012)Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98S S124-S130
  • [6] Collier MB(2013)Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99S S219-S225
  • [7] Eickmann TH(2006)Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomized controlled study of the acrobot system J Bone Jt Surg Br 88 188-197
  • [8] Sukezaki F(2006)Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement J Bone Jt Surg Br 88 44-48
  • [9] McAuley JP(2013)Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA Clin Orthop Relat Res 471 118-126
  • [10] Engh GA(2018)Pros and cons: a balanced view of robotics in knee arthroplasty J Arthroplast 33 2007-2013