2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
High ten years survivorship and functional results of robotic-arm-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Guido Maritan, MD, Padova, PD ITALY
Mattia Berti, MD, Abano Terme (Padova) ITALY
Federico Roman, MD, Pordenone, Pordenone ITALY
Emanuele Furlan, MD, Abano Terme, PD ITALY
Policlinico Abano Terme, Abano Terme (Padova), ITALY
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
Robotic-arm-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a safe procedure that leads to high implant survival and patient satisfaction at mean 10-year follow-up
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Background
Robotic-arm assisted arthroplasty is growing in popularity among orthopaedic surgeons as it leads to higher accuracy and fewer alignment outliers than conventional arthroplasty. To-date, there are just a few studies reporting on long term outcomes of robotic‐arm‐assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic‐arm‐assisted lateral UKA.
Methods
A retrospective review of patients who had undergone robotic‐arm‐assisted lateral UKA before August 2016 was performed. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire about revision surgery and their level of satisfaction. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were used to analyse the functional results.
Results
A total of 71 knees (70 patients) were included in the study. The mean follow up was 10.2 (range 8-13.1). Three knees were revised, with an overall survivorship of 95.7%. The cause for revision was progression of osteoarthritis in two cases (66.6%) and unexplained pain in the other one (33.3%). All the patients reported improvement in the functional scores and 87.7% of them were satisfied or very satisfied with their lateral UKA. No intraoperative complications occurred.
Conclusion
Our findings show how robotic‐arm‐assisted lateral UKA guarantee ten years implant survivorship and high levels of patient satisfaction. The main causes of revision were progression of OA in contralateral compartments and unexplained pain. In the literature there is still no evidence of better outcomes than those achieved with conventional techniques. Future comparative studies are needed to prove it.