Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr;27(4):1232-1240.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5. Epub 2018 Jul 31.

Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Cécile Batailler  1 , Nathan White  2 , Filippo Maria Ranaldi  2 , Philippe Neyret  2 , Elvire Servien  2 , Sébastien Lustig  2
Affiliations

Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Cécile Batailler et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Complication; Implant positioning; Robotic-assisted surgery; Surgical revision; Total knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Jun;(423):161-5 - PubMed
    1. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20(4 Suppl 2):2-3 - PubMed
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Feb;88(2):188-97 - PubMed
    1. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep;21(6 Suppl 2):108-15 - PubMed
    1. J Arthroplasty. 2010 Feb;25(2):230-7 - PubMed

MeSH terms