Management of failed UKA to TKA: conventional versus robotic-assisted conversion technique
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a distressing and technically challenging complication. Conventional conversion techniques (CCT) with rods and jigs have produced varying results. A robotic-assisted conversion technique (RCT) is an unexplored, though possibly advantageous, alternative. We compare our reconstructive outcomes between conventional and robotic methods in the management of failed UKA. Methods: Thirty-four patients with a failed UKA were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with either a CCT or RCT. Seventeen patients were included in each group. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at a single institution, with a mean time to follow-up of 3.6 years (range, 1 to 12). The primary outcome measures were the need for augments and polyethylene thickness. Secondary outcome measures were complications, need for revision, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and operative time. Results: The mean polyethylene thickness was 12mm (range, 9 to 15) in the CCT group and 10mm (range, 9 to 14) in the RCT groups, with no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.07). A statistically significant difference, however, was present in the use of augments. In the CCT group, five out of 17 knees required augments, whereas none of the 17 knees in the RCT group required augments (P = 0.04). Procedurally, roboticassisted surgery progressed uneventfully, even with metal artifact noted on the preoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans. Computer mapping of the residual bone surface after implant removal was a helpful guide in minimizing resection depth. No further revisions or reoperations were performed in either group. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted conversion TKA is technically feasible and potentially advantageous. In the absence of normal anatomic landmarks to guide conventional methods, the preoperative CT scans were unexpectedly helpful in establishing mechanical alignment and resection depth. In this limited series, RCT does not seem to be inferior to CCT. Further investigation of outcomes is warranted.
Abstract
Background: Failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a distressing and technically challenging complication. Conventional conversion techniques (CCT) with rods and jigs have produced varying results. A robotic-assisted conversion technique (RCT) is an unexplored, though possibly advantageous, alternative. We compare our reconstructive outcomes between conventional and robotic methods in the management of failed UKA. Methods: Thirty-four patients with a failed UKA were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with either a CCT or RCT. Seventeen patients were included in each group. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at a single institution, with a mean time to follow-up of 3.6 years (range, 1 to 12). The primary outcome measures were the need for augments and polyethylene thickness. Secondary outcome measures were complications, need for revision, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and operative time. Results: The mean polyethylene thickness was 12mm (range, 9 to 15) in the CCT group and 10mm (range, 9 to 14) in the RCT groups, with no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.07). A statistically significant difference, however, was present in the use of augments. In the CCT group, five out of 17 knees required augments, whereas none of the 17 knees in the RCT group required augments (P = 0.04). Procedurally, roboticassisted surgery progressed uneventfully, even with metal artifact noted on the preoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans. Computer mapping of the residual bone surface after implant removal was a helpful guide in minimizing resection depth. No further revisions or reoperations were performed in either group. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted conversion TKA is technically feasible and potentially advantageous. In the absence of normal anatomic landmarks to guide conventional methods, the preoperative CT scans were unexpectedly helpful in establishing mechanical alignment and resection depth. In this limited series, RCT does not seem to be inferior to CCT. Further investigation of outcomes is warranted.
참고문헌 (17)
- Craik JD, "revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 30(4), pp.592~594 (2015)
- Rancourt MF, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties", J Arthroplasty, 27(8 Suppl), pp.106~110 (2012)
- Lunebourg A, "Are revisions of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties more like a primary or revision TKA?", J Arthroplasty, 20(11), pp.1985~1989 (2015)
- Sun X, "A meta-analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty", J Orthop Surg Res, 12(1), pp.158~ (2018)
- Saldanha KA, "Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty-results of a multicentre study", Knee, 14(4), pp.275~279 (2007)
- Lai CH, "Revision of failed unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 287, pp.193~201 (1993)
- Padgett DE, "Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 73(2), pp.186~190 (1991)
- Otte KS, "Cementless AGC revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 12(1), pp.55~59 (1997)
- Sierra RJ, "Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty:not always a slam dunk!", J Arthroplasty, 28(8 Suppl), pp.128~132 (2013)
- Wynn Jones H, "Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement: similar to a primary?", Knee, 19(4), pp.339~343 (2012)
- Chou DT, "Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement", Knee, 19(4), pp.356~359 (2012)
- Jarvenpaa J, "The clinical outcomes of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty : 8–17 ears follow-up study of 49patients", Int Orthop, 34(5), pp.649~653 (2010)
- Chakrabarty G, "Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee : clinical and technical considerations", J Arthroplasty, 13(2), pp.191~196 (1998)
- Levine WN, "Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 11(7), pp.797~801 (1996)
- Thienpont E, "Conversion of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to a total knee arthroplasty: can we achieve a primary result?", Bone Joint J, 99-B(1 Suppl A), pp.65~69 (2017)
- Lombardi AV Jr, "Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: is it as good as a primary result?", J Arthroplasty, 33(7 Suppl), pp.S105~S108 (2018)
- Ponzio DY, "Preoperative mapping in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using computed tomography scans is associated with radiation exposure and carries high cost", J Arthroplasty, 30(6), pp.964~967 (2015)