Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(10): 1048-1056
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701455
Original Article

Robotic-Assisted versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Early Functional Outcomes

Michael A. Gaudiani
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Linsen T. Samuel 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Atul F. Kamath 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
P. Maxwell Courtney
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Gwo-Chin Lee
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Penn Medicine University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RA-UKA) aims to improve accuracy of component placement. Studies have shown improvement in radiographic positioning/alignment with RA-UKA but have not addressed clinical outcome measures (COMs). The purpose of this study was to determine if RA-UKA is associated with improved early revision rates and functional outcome scores (FOS) compared with manual UKA. A systematic review of all English language articles from 1999 to 2019 on RA-UKA using Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases identified 277 studies. Seven (three randomized controlled trials) met inclusion criteria. Revision rates/FOS were aggregated for RA-UKA and manual UKA; a forest plot was constructed utilizing inverse variance/Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effects meta-analysis. The seven articles included a total of 363 RA-UKA patients and 425 manual UKA patients. Mean age was 66 ± 3.5 and 65 ± 4.0 years, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.8 ± 2.1 and 27.1 ± 1.5 kg/m2, respectively. Mean follow-up was 25.5 months (4.5–48) and 29.1 months (4.5–48) for RA-UKA and manual UKA, respectively. At latest follow-up, RA-UKA patients showed a 26% ± 12 improvement in COMs versus 24% ± 12 improvement for manual UKA patients (p = 0.6). The revision rate was 3% for both groups (p = 0.8); however, a meta-analysis of RCTs showed no difference. Robotic and manual UKAs offer comparable improvements in pain, FOS, and revision rates. The effects of follow-up duration, ceiling effects of COMs, and surgeon experience remain unknown. Future studies comparing robotic versus manual UKAs with longer term follow-up may inform further benefits of each, with respect to component durability, alignment, and functional improvement.

Keywords

robotic assisted - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - clinical outcomes - manual outcomes - meta-analysis


Publication History

Received: 14 September 2019

Accepted: 13 December 2019

Article published online:
30 January 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Blaney J, Harty H, Doran E. et al. Five-year clinical and radiological outcomes in 257 consecutive cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (05) 623-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Patil S, Clifford C, Ezzet K, D'lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement?. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol (CD-ROM Ed) 2005; 87-A (02) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (05) 1453-1459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Patients with isolated lateral osteoarthritis: Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?. Knee 2016; 23 (06) 968-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 151-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 The New Zealand Joint Registry. Fourteen year report. January 1999 to December. Accessed December 30, 2019 at: https://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NJR%2014%20Year%20Report.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Annual report 2018 Swedish knee arthroplasty register. Accessed December 30, 2019 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329566953_The_Swedish_Knee_Arthroplasty_Register_-_Annual_Report_2018
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E, McAuley JP, Engh Jr CA, Engh GA. Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2): 98-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O. Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (04) 342-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kasodekar VB, Yeo SJ, Othman S. Clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and influence of alignment on prosthesis survival rate. Singapore Med J 2006; 47 (09) 796-802
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (08) 702-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017; 6 (11) 631-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Canetti R, Batailler C, Bankhead C, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (12) 1765-1771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dretakis K, Igoumenou VG. Outcomes of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29 (06) 1305-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Deese JM, Gratto-Cox G, Carter DA, Sasser Jr TM, Brown KL. Patient reported and clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: Minimum two year follow-up. J Orthop 2018; 15 (03) 847-853
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Gaudiani MA, Nwachukwu BU, Baviskar JV, Sharma M, Ranawat AS. Optimization of sagittal and coronal planes with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2017; 24 (04) 837-843
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wong J, Murtaugh T, Lakra A, Cooper HJ, Shah RP, Geller JA. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee replacement offers no early advantage over conventional unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2303-2308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (04) 1232-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Association AO. Annual report: hip and knee replacement. Accessed December 30, 2018 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328320257_2018_Hip_Knee_Shoulder_Arthroplasty_Annual_Report
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Bernardoni H, Illgen R. Manual versus robotic assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison of validated clinical outcomes at 3 years. 2016 Am Assoc Hip Knee Surg Annu Meet Dallas. Accessed December 30, 2016 at: http://meeting.aahks.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/poster-abstract-book-2016-final.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Engh GA, Dwyer KA, Hanes CK. Polyethylene wear of metal-backed tibial components in total and unicompartmental knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74 (01) 9-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y. Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (01) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 457-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F. et al. Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (11) 2453-2461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Alvand A, Khan T, Jenkins C. et al. The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (06) 1662-1670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jones GG, Logishetty K, Clarke S. et al. Do patient-specific instruments (PSI) for UKA allow non-expert surgeons to achieve the same saw cut accuracy as expert surgeons?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (11) 1601-1608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (07) 1994-2001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Na SE, Ha CW, Lee CH. A new high-flexion knee scoring system to eliminate the ceiling effect. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (02) 584-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 (03) 280-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (04) 409-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. The utility of outcome measures in total knee replacement surgery. Int J Rheumatol 2013; 2013: 506518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lonner JH. Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology. Am J Orthop 2009; 38 (2, Suppl): 3-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ponzio DY, Lonner JH. Robotic technology produces more conservative tibial resection than conventional techniques in UKA. Am J Orthop 2016; 45 (07) E465-E468
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Marcovigi A, Zambianchi F, Sandoni D, Rivi E, Catani F. Robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: a single centre experience. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2S): 54-59
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (06) 1719-1726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar