본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Comparison of 1-year outcomes between MAKO versus NAVIO robot-assisted medial UKA: nonrandomized, prospective, comparative study

Leelasestaporn Chumroonkiet|Tarnpichprasert Tomorn|Arirachakaran Alisara|Kongtharvonskul Jatupon
대한슬관절학회 (Korean Knee Society)|2020.12|Knee Surgery and Related Research|제32권 |pp. 13-13|DOI 10.1186/s43019-020-00030-x

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

초록

Background: We have conducted a prospective cohort study with the aim of comparing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and radiologic and clinical outcomes between imageless (NAVIO) and image-based(MAKO) robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Methods: A total of 33 patients with medial compartment OA of the knee were prospectively allocated on alternate operative days of their surgery to MAKO (16 patients) or NAVIO (17 patients) robot-assisted UKA. The primary outcome (Knee Society Score [KSS] and Knee Functional Score [KFS]) and the secondary outcomes (intraoperative time of seven steps [registration of hip and ankle, femur and tibia, ligament tension, implant planning, preparation femur, tibia and trial implant], component alignment [coronal and sagittal of femur, tibia implant], blood loss, complications, and revision at 1 year after surgery) were compared between two groups. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Mean KSS measured at baseline and 1 year were, respectively, 70.3 (5.6) and 96.9 (5.7) in the NAVIO group and 72.3 (4.5) and 94.7 (10.01) in the MAKO group. Mean KFS measured at baseline and 1 year were, respectively, 95.5 (7.9) and 99.9 (0.25) in the NAVIO group and 67.3 (7.8) and 99.5 (1.2) in the MAKO group. There were no significant differences for KFS and KSS outcomes (P = 0.203 and P = 0.457, respectively) between the NAVIO and MAKO groups. Mean operative time and blood loss in the NAVIO versus MAKO robot-assisted UKA groups were 98 min versus 82.5 min and 136.3 ml versus 80 ml, respectively, and these differences were statistically significant. In the MAKO group, the intraoperative time was statistically significantly shorter in registration of hip and ankle center, femur and tibia, femur preparation, and trial implantation compared with the NAVIO group. There were no significant differences of component alignment and radiologic alignment at 1 year between the two groups. No perioperative or delayed complications (infection, periprosthetic fracture, thromboembolism, and compromised wound healing) and revisions were reported in either group. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that two robotic systems showed no difference in clinical outcomes at 1 year and radiologic alignment of implants, whereas operative time and intraoperative blood loss were found to be less in MAKO robot-assisted UKA.

Abstract

Background: We have conducted a prospective cohort study with the aim of comparing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and radiologic and clinical outcomes between imageless (NAVIO) and image-based(MAKO) robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Methods: A total of 33 patients with medial compartment OA of the knee were prospectively allocated on alternate operative days of their surgery to MAKO (16 patients) or NAVIO (17 patients) robot-assisted UKA. The primary outcome (Knee Society Score [KSS] and Knee Functional Score [KFS]) and the secondary outcomes (intraoperative time of seven steps [registration of hip and ankle, femur and tibia, ligament tension, implant planning, preparation femur, tibia and trial implant], component alignment [coronal and sagittal of femur, tibia implant], blood loss, complications, and revision at 1 year after surgery) were compared between two groups. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Mean KSS measured at baseline and 1 year were, respectively, 70.3 (5.6) and 96.9 (5.7) in the NAVIO group and 72.3 (4.5) and 94.7 (10.01) in the MAKO group. Mean KFS measured at baseline and 1 year were, respectively, 95.5 (7.9) and 99.9 (0.25) in the NAVIO group and 67.3 (7.8) and 99.5 (1.2) in the MAKO group. There were no significant differences for KFS and KSS outcomes (P = 0.203 and P = 0.457, respectively) between the NAVIO and MAKO groups. Mean operative time and blood loss in the NAVIO versus MAKO robot-assisted UKA groups were 98 min versus 82.5 min and 136.3 ml versus 80 ml, respectively, and these differences were statistically significant. In the MAKO group, the intraoperative time was statistically significantly shorter in registration of hip and ankle center, femur and tibia, femur preparation, and trial implantation compared with the NAVIO group. There were no significant differences of component alignment and radiologic alignment at 1 year between the two groups. No perioperative or delayed complications (infection, periprosthetic fracture, thromboembolism, and compromised wound healing) and revisions were reported in either group. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that two robotic systems showed no difference in clinical outcomes at 1 year and radiologic alignment of implants, whereas operative time and intraoperative blood loss were found to be less in MAKO robot-assisted UKA.

참고문헌 (22)

  1. Laurencin CT, "Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient : a comparative study", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 273, pp.151~156 (1991)
  2. Patil S, "Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement?", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87(2), pp.332~338 (2005)
  3. Hollinghurst D, "No deterioration of kinematics and cruciate function 10 years after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty", Knee, 13(6), pp.440~444 (2006)
  4. Lecuire F, "Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 24(3), pp.385~394 (2014)
  5. Lustig S, "5-to 16-year follow-up of 54 consecutive lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasties with a fixed-all polyethylene bearing", J Arthroplast, 26(8), pp.1318~1325 (2011)
  6. Hansen DC, "Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 29(9), pp.1784~1789 (2014)
  7. Bell SW, "Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : data from a prospective, randomized controlled study", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 98(8), pp.627~635 (2016)
  8. Millar LJ, "O 017 - A five-year follow up of gait in robotic assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", Gait Posture, 65(Suppl 1), pp.31~32 (2018)
  9. Citak M, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?", Knee, 20(4), pp.268~271 (2013)
  10. Jenny JY, "The rationale for navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 463, pp.58~62 (2007)
  11. Lonner JH, "Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology", Am J Orthop (Belle Mead, NJ), 38(2 Suppl), pp.3~6 (2009)
  12. Pearle AD, "Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplast, 25(2), pp.230~237 (2010)
  13. Motesharei A, "A comparison of gait one year post operation in an RCT of robotic UKA versus traditional Oxford UKA", Gait Posture, 62, pp.41~45 (2018)
  14. Canetti R, "Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : a comparative study", Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 138(12), pp.1765~1771 (2018)
  15. Gilmour A, "Robotic-arm–assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial", J Arthroplasty, 33(7S), pp.S109~S115 (2018)
  16. Blyth MJG, "Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial", Bone Joint Res, 6(11), pp.631~639 (2017)
  17. Lonner JH, "Robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : options and outcomes", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 27(5), pp.e207~e214 (2019)
  18. Herry Y, "Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a roboticassisted surgical technique", Int Orthop, 41(11), pp.2265~2271 (2017)
  19. Hurst JM, "Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-peg versus twin-peg design", J Arthroplast, 30(3), pp.475~478 (2015)
  20. Kamenaga T, "Valgus subsidence of the tibial component caused by tibial component malpositioning in cementless oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplast, 34(12), pp.3054~3060 (2019)
  21. Lee WC, "The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 25(11), pp.3354~3359 (2017)
  22. Chee-Kidd C, "Is nonoperative treatment still indicated for Jones fracture?", Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 36(3), pp.270~ (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

Robotic-assisted vs conventional surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiological studyBarahona Maximiliano, Duboy Jaime, Ferrer Gonzalo, Infante Carlos, Iñiguez Magaly, Jabes Nicolás, Negrín Roberto, Reyes Nicolás O.대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2021 · 제33권 Evidence-based surgical technique for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplastyChoi Sang Min, Kim Tae Kyun, Kim Woo Hyun, Meshram Prashant, Mittal Anurag대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2021 · 제33권 Management of failed UKA to TKA: conventional versus robotic-assisted conversion techniqueChen Chang-Hwa Mary, Pasko Kory B. Dylan, Qutami Marilena, Yun Andrew G.대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권 Preserving coronal knee alignment of the knee (CPAK) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty correlates with superior patient-reported outcomes윤국로, 이명철, 이재민, Hyuk‑Soo Han, Sung Eun Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Intentionally Increased Flexion Angle of the Femoral Component in Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty송상준, Kang-Il Kim, Kye-Youl Cho, Kyu-Jin Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2018 · 제30권 제1호Unicompartmental vs. segmental bicompartmental vs. total knee replacement: comparison of clinical outcomesAl-Dadah Oday, Barrett David S., Chapman-Sheath Philip J., Hawes Georgina, Tice John William대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (63건)

Comparison of the postoperative analgesic effect for infiltration between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee and that of periarticular multimodal drug injection in total knee arthroplasty: retrospective study in the immediate postoperative period손원용, Ok-Gul Kim, In Seung Lee, Seung-Suk Seo, Dae-Won Jungpp. 1-1Correlation between meniscal extrusion and symptom duration, alignment, and arthritic changes in medial meniscus posterior root tear: research article김동휘, Hyun Hak Kim, 이광철, Dong Hyuk Chapp. 2-2Outcomes and component-positioning in total knee arthroplasty may be comparable between supervised trained surgeons and their supervisorYoshinari Miyamoto, Yozo Katsuragawa, Kazumi Gotopp. 3-3Calcium phosphate injection of symptomatic bone marrow lesions of the knee: what is the current clinical evidence?J. T. K. Melton, D. S. Angadi, D. Edwardspp. 4-4The effect of interleukin-8 in the early stage after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservationBeom Koo Lee, Ji-Uk Choi, Kyung-Ok Kim, Jae Ang Sim, 박홍기pp. 5-5
원문 보기