Different intraoperative joint laxity patterns do not impact clinical outcomes in robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee replacement with 1-to-1 surface reconstruction

不同的术中关节松弛模式并不影响机器人辅助内侧单髁膝关节置换术(1:1 表面重建)的临床结果。

阅读:1

Abstract

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted technology in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) allows for customized adjustments of joint laxity through virtual preoperative component positioning before bone preparation. Nevertheless, the optimal balancing curve has yet to be delineated. This study sought to investigate if varying intraoperative knee laxity patterns had any impact on postoperative patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on prospectively collected data from 326 fixed-bearing RAUKA procedures performed between 2018 and 2022 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were categorized into three cohorts based on intraoperative joint laxity patterns (millimetres of joint gap during valgus stress) imparted at 20°, 60°, 90° and 120° of knee flexion: cohort 1 < +0.5 mm (tight); cohort 2 between 0.6 and 1.9 mm (physiologic); cohort 3 > 2 mm (loose). Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to assess patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) improvements and preoperative and postoperative differences across the cohorts. A Spearman's test evaluated the correlation between knee balance at all degrees of flexion and preoperative and postoperative HKA. RESULTS: No differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were identified across the cohorts (p > 0.05). All three cohorts with different joint laxity patterns showed a significant improvement in the postoperative PROMS (p < 0.05). The preoperative or postoperative limb alignment did not significantly affect clinical outcomes relative to different laxity patterns. CONCLUSION: No differences were found in the outcomes across different joint laxity patterns in robotic-assisted medial UKA using fixed-bearing mUKAs. There was no evident advantage for maintaining a closer to physiologic laxity compared to tighter or looser balancing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。