Abstract
Aims
The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
Methods
Postoperative radiological outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic centre were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiologically measured to identify outliers.
Results
When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers.
Conclusion
Robotic system navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA. Given the association between component placement errors and revision in UKA, this strong significant improvement in accuracy may improve implant survival.
Level of Evidence: III
Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:191–197.
Introduction
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers many potential advantages compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the treatment of unicompartmental arthritis, including decreased pain, higher patient-reported satisfaction, shorter recovery times, and more functional knee kinematics.1-12 Despite the clear advantages offered by UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, however, implant survival has been relatively poor compared to TKA. Aside from case series by the designing centres of the Oxford UKA, which have demonstrated ten-year UKA survival as high as 97%,13-16 survival estimates from other case series and large national registry databases have ranged between 70% to 92% and 81% to 88%, respectively.2,17-23
Both patient- and surgeon-specific factors have been implicated as potential causes for the increased failure rates associated with UKA. Because patient-specific risk factors like lower age and higher BMI are largely beyond the surgeon’s control and difficult or impossible to manipulate, they offer minimal opportunity for actionable strategies to improve outcomes.24-26 Surgeon-specific factors, on the other hand, provide potential modifiable targets to improve survivorship following UKA. As a result, these factors have become an important area of research in recent years.
Not surprisingly, surgeon-specific technical errors represent a considerable risk factor for UKA failure.27-32 UKA is believed to be a more technically demanding procedure than TKA, as device implantation is performed through a smaller incision.33 Due to the decreased viewing window, obtaining accurate implant alignment and positioning is often challenging. In a recent study by Kazarian et al,23 a group of high-volume arthroplasty surgeons performing a moderate number of UKAs (> 14 UKAs/year) were found to only place implants within their target position and alignment ranges in 11.9% of knees. Concerningly, this study and others have demonstrated that implant malalignment and malpositioning are significant risk factors for early UKA failure and poor clinical outcomes.22,23,27,33-38 Based on the demonstrated association between implant malpositioning/malalignment and poor clinical outcomes/survivorship, there is an outstanding need for efforts and technologies that decrease intraoperative surgical error and improve UKA alignment accuracy.
Over the years, multiple technologies have been introduced in order to increase the accuracy of implant alignment and mitigate the potential risk of implant failure, such as customized patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and robotic technology. While PSI has shown minimal impact in improving the accuracy of implant alignment in UKA,39 the overwhelming majority of studies assessing the influence of robotic systems have demonstrated noticeably improved implant accuracy across multiple different robotic system platforms.40-45
The primary goal of the current study was to assess the proportion of radiological alignment and overhang outliers following robotically assisted UKA, and compare these results to historic controls from manual UKA at our institution (which used the same indications). We hypothesized that robotic system assistance would significantly decrease the number of alignment and overhang outliers.
Methods
Study design
Institutional Review Board approval was attained prior to the initiation of this study. This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study comparing the clinical outcomes and radiological results between primary medial UKAs performed using robotic assistance (RAUKA, n = 86) and manual instrumentation (MUKA, n = 253). RAUKAs represented a consecutive series of robotic-assisted UKAs performed between February 2019 and February 2020. RAUKAs were performed by one of three fellowship-trained senior arthroplasty surgeons (RLB, RMN, CML) using the Mako Robotic Arm System (Stryker, USA) and the Restoris MCK implant (Stryker), and included surgeons’ learning curves (initial training cases) with the robotic system.
The control group of MUKAs was drawn from a cohort of patients that were previously described in a case series by Kazarian et al23 assessing alignment and clinical survival following MUKA in a series that included both fixed- (Journey UKA; Smith & Nephew, USA) and mobile-bearing (Oxford Phase 3 UKA; Zimmer-Biomet, USA) UKAs. MUKAs were performed between January 2008 and December 2017 by one of two fellowship-trained senior arthroplasty surgeons (RLB, RMN) using standard instrumentation without the assistance of custom-cutting guides, PSI, or fluoroscopy. The MUKA cohort did not include each surgeon’s MUKA learning curve.
The decision to perform robotic system versus manual UKA was not based on clinical decision-making or surgeon/patient preference, and there were no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria that differentiated the use of these surgical methods. The use of RAUKA versus MUKA was determined by the availability of the Mako Rio System at our institution. Prior to the acquisition of the robotic system in February 2019, all UKAs were performed using standard manual instrumentation. After its acquisition, all UKAs were performed using robotic system assistance.
Consecutive series of male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent RAUKA or MUKA were included in our analysis. In the current study, patients' ages ranged between 40.5 and 83.6 years. Patients were excluded from undergoing UKA if they had knee instability, posterior tibial translation, fixed varus (> 10°) or valgus (> 5°) deformity, or grade IV patellofemoral compartment chondrosis. Patient demographics for the UKA groups are shown in Table I.
Table I.
Patient demographic data.
| Category | RAUKA | MUKA |
|---|---|---|
| Total, n | 86 | 253 |
| Mean age, yrs (SD) | 62.6 (9.4) | 62.9 (8.7) |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 (SD) | 30.2 (4.2) | 30.3 (5.4) |
| Sex, % male | 60.0 | 44.0 |
-
MUKA, manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; RAUKA, robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Our sample size of RAUKAs was calculated in order to detect a difference in percent outliers of roughly 15% compared to the MUKA group, which would require 71 patients. In order to account for a possible 20% attrition rate, we enrolled a total of 86 patients.
Radiological and clinical outcomes
Radiological outcomes included digital measurements of femoral coronal angle (FCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), and tibial sagittal angle (TSA), as well as assessments of medial, anterior, and posterior overhang. All measurements were performed on post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) non weight-bearing AP and lateral short-leg radiographs. The use of short-leg radiographs in lieu of long-leg radiographs for the assessment of implant alignment has been previously validated.23,46-52 A description of the methodology used to assess implant alignment and positioning has been detailed in prior studies.23,53 The accuracy of non-weight-bearing short-leg radiographs in assessing implant alignment was assessed by comparing 45 non-weight-bearing short-leg radiographs to the standing weight-bearing radiographs from the same patients at the four- to six-week postoperative visit.
Defining postoperative radiological outliers
Postoperative radiological outliers for both RAUKA and MUKA were assessed using the parameters described in Kazarian et al23 For the MUKA group, outliers were defined as follows: FCA ≥ 10° deviation from the neutral axis, FSA > 15° flexion, TCA ≥ 5° deviation from the neutral axis, and TSA ≥ 5° deviation from 7°. During RAUKA, target alignment is not pre-defined, but is calculated and customized intraoperatively after the robotic system calculates the ideal implant placement to optimize soft tissue balancing. Therefore, for RAUKA, implant alignment outliers were defined as follows: FCA ≥ 10° deviation from the intraoperative target, FSA > 15° flexion from the intraoperative target, TCA ≥ 5° deviation from the intraoperative target, and TSA ≥ 5° deviation from the intraoperative target. This method allowed us to determine how accurately the robotic system was able to execute its intraoperative plan. Measurements that fell ≥ 2° outside of these ranges were defined as far outliers.52 Medial/posterior overhang outliers were defined as > 2 mm of overhang, while anterior overhang outliers were defined as > 3 mm of overhang.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis for this study was performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, USA). Outcomes scores and the proportion of radiological alignment/overhang outliers between the RAUKA and MUKA groups were compared. Categorical variables were compared using Fischer’s exact tests, while continuous variables were compared using independent-samples t-tests. The threshold for statistical significance was p < 0.05.
Results
Radiological outcomes in RAUKA
We found that 91.6% of all FCA, FSA, TCA, and TSA angles measured in this study were within alignment targets, while 4.1% and 4.4% represented outliers and far outliers, respectively (Table II). Additionally, when assessing anterior, posterior, and medial overhang, 99.2% of all measurements were within target overhang ranges, while only 0.8% represented outliers. Femoral and tibial implant alignment results from the RAUKA and MUKA groups are demonstrated in scatterplots in Figure 1.
Fig. 1
Comparison of femoral and sagittal alignment in the manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MUKA) and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) groups. a) For the MUKA group, green shading indicates the region of optimal femoral coronal angle ((FCA) ≤ 10° deviation from the neutral axis and femoral sagittal angle (FSA) < 15° flexion) and sagittal (tibial coronal angle (TCA) ≤ 5° deviation from the neutral axis and tibial sagittal angle (TSA) ≤ 5° deviation from 7°) alignment based on preoperative targets. b) For the RAUKA group, green shading indicates the regions of optimal femoral and tibial alignent based on deviation from intraoperative targets. In both instances, outliers that remain within approximately 2° of the optimal alignment targets are indicated with yellow shading. “Far” outliers, which are ≥ 2° outside of optimal alignment, are indicated with red shading.
Table II.
Implant alignment for robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
| Angle | Aligned | Outliers | Far outliers | Any outliers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCA, % | 97.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 2.3 |
| FSA, % | 82.6 | 5.8 | 11.6 | 17.4 |
| TCA, % | 94.2 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 5.8 |
| TSA, % | 91.9 | 5.8 | 2.3 | 8.1 |
-
FCA, femoral coronal angle; FSA, femoral sagittal angle; TCA, tibial coronal angle; TSA, tibial sagittal angle.
When comparing the use of short-leg non-weight-bearing PACU radiographs to standing weight-bearing radiographs at four to six weeks postoperatively, each method identified 16 total close and far outliers when assessing FCA, FSA, TCA, and TSA from 45 patients, with 93.3% agreement between these methods.
Comparing radiological outcomes in RAUKA versus MUKA
When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences (all calculated using Fisher's exact test) were identified between the proportion of FSA outliers (5.8% vs 14.6%; p = 0.033) and TCA outliers (3.5% vs 22.1%; p < 0.001), as well as far FCA (1.2% vs 7.5%; p = 0.032), FSA (11.6% vs 35.6%; p < 0.001), and TCA (2.3% vs 19.4%; p < 0.001) outliers. Differences in anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers were also statistically significant. When assessing the number of combined close and far outliers, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023) (Table III).
Table III.
Radiological outcomes between the robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (n = 86) and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (n = 253) groups.
| Measure | RAUKA, % | MUKA, % | Difference, % | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCA outlier | 1.2 | 5.1 | 3.9 | 0.113 |
| FSA outlier | 5.8 | 14.6 | 8.8 | 0.033 |
| TCA outlier | 3.5 | 22.1 | 18.6 | < 0.001 |
| TSA outlier | 5.8 | 13.0 | 7.2 | 0.069 |
| FCA far outlier | 1.2 | 7.5 | 6.3 | 0.032 |
| FSA far outlier | 11.6 | 35.6 | 24.0 | < 0.001 |
| TCA far outlier | 2.3 | 19.4 | 17.1 | < 0.001 |
| TSA far outlier | 2.3 | 5.5 | 3.2 | 0.230 |
| FCA any outlier | 2.3 | 12.6 | 10.3 | 0.006 |
| FSA any outlier | 17.4 | 50.2 | 32.8 | < 0.001 |
| TCA any outlier | 5.8 | 41.5 | 35.7 | < 0.001 |
| TSA any outlier | 8.1 | 18.6 | 10.4 | 0.023 |
| Anterior fit | 0.0 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 0.042 |
| Posterior fit | 1.2 | 13.4 | 12.2 | 0.001 |
| Medial fit | 1.2 | 14.2 | 13.0 | 0.001 |
| All perfect | 68.6 | 11.9 | -56.7 | < 0.001 |
-
FCA, femoral coronal angle; FSA, femoral sagittal angle; MUKA, manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; RAUKA, robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; TCA, tibial coronal angle; TSA, tibial sagittal angle.
Discussion
In the current study, we assessed the radiological and clinical outcomes of RAUKA and compared them to MUKA control groups for implant accuracy. Overall, 8.4% of alignment measurements were outliers, with only 4.4% representing far outliers. Additionally, only 0.8% of overhang measurements were outliers. A total of 68.6% of knees simultaneously met optimal alignment and overhang targets. When comparing alignment accuracy between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, RAUKA was associated with a highly significant decrease in the proportion of FSA and TCA outliers, FCA, FSA, and TCA far outliers, and combined outliers for all alignment measures. Furthermore, RAUKA was associated with significant decreases in the proportion of anterior, posterior, and medial overhang outliers.
The results of the current study are best understood when compared to the results of a prior study at our institution that assessed the accuracy of implant alignment following manual UKA and its impact on implant survival.23 In the first study, FCA, FSA, TCA, and TSA outliers were found to significantly increase the risk of failure, as did far outliers, posterior overhang outliers, and medial overhang outliers. By demonstrating that robotic-arm assistance during medial UKA can diminish the risk of FSA and TCA outliers, FCA, FSA, and TCA far outliers, and posterior and medial overhang outliers, it is possible that this technology can significantly decrease the high risk of premature implant failure associated with UKA.
Over the years, multiple technologies have been introduced in order to increase the accuracy of implant alignment and mitigate the potential risk of implant failure, such as custom instrumentation and robotic technology. The overwhelming majority of studies assessing the influence of robotic systems, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have demonstrated significantly improved implant accuracy associated with the use of robotic system technology across multiple different robotic platforms.40-45,54 Though the notion that robotic system technology improves alignment in UKA and TKA is generally accepted, this has been called into question in a recent study of 128 manual UKAs performed by Bush et al.55 While this study did not have an internal control group, it demonstrated that a high-volume surgeon could out-perform historic robotic-assisted UKA controls in terms of implant accuracy. Importantly, this study commented only on differences in root-mean square (RMS) error from preoperative targets and did not comment on the number of alignment outliers. Studies assessing outliers to compare RAUKA and MUKA, on the other hand, have demonstrated that the use of robotic system technology significantly decreases the frequency of implant alignment outliers.44,45
While the evidence appears clear that robotic system technology improves implant alignment following UKA, what remains controversial is what impact, if any, this has on long-term outcomes. Though results from “designer series” and early studies assessing the survival of UKA have demonstrated excellent long-term survival,13,14,56,57 other studies from a wide variety of surgeons have demonstrated much poorer long-term survival.2,16-21,53,58,59 It is yet unclear whether this increased failure rate compared to TKA is related to the patient demographic details associated with UKA, implant design, or implant placement. However, a growing body of indirect33,60-64 and direct22,23,27,33-38 evidence has implicated the accuracy of implant placement as a major cause for this increased rate of failure. Future studies must validate this theory through RCTs and cost-effectiveness analyses to better understand whether these presumed trends can withstand more rigorously controlled analyses, and if so, whether these improvements justify the high costs associated with the use of robotic system technology in orthopaedics.
This study had many limitations. Firstly, it relied on short-leg radiographs rather than CT scans for the assessment of implant alignment. While we have demonstrated precision with this measurement technique, the accuracy of this method may be variable due to human error, image quality, or image rotation, especially in the assessment of FSA. This may explain the higher-than-expected proportion of outliers and far outliers identified. Secondly, our comparison of RAUKA to historic MUKA controls is an imperfect comparison, and the lack of randomization introduces a potential risk of bias. Thirdly, while the surgeon learning curve for the RAUKA group was included in our analysis, it was not for the MUKA group. This may bias the results of this study to show poorer outcomes for the RAUKA group. Finally, it is important to highlight that historic MUKA controls were performed by senior surgeons who fall below the high-volume standards for UKA recommended by the Oxford group, which may have influenced implant accuracy55
In conclusion, RAUKA was associated with significant improvements in implant placement accuracy compared to MUKA. Further studies are needed to assess the durability of these early postoperative outcomes, as well as to assess whether the improved alignment associated with RAUKA leads to meaningful improvements in implant survival.
References
1. Brown NM , Sheth NP , Davis K , et al. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis . J Arthroplasty . 2012 ; 27 ( 8 Suppl ): 86 – 90 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
2. Liddle AD , Judge A , Pandit H , Murray DW . Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National joint Registry for England and Wales . Lancet . 2014 ; 384 ( 9952 ): 1437 – 1445 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Drager J , Hart A , Khalil JA , Zukor DJ , Bergeron SG , Antoniou J . Shorter hospital stay and lower 30-day readmission after Unicondylar knee arthroplasty compared to total knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 2 ): 356 – 361 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Duchman KR , Gao Y , Pugely AJ , Martin CT , Callaghan JJ . Differences in short-term complications between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2014 ; 96-A ( 16 ): 1387 – 1394 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Lim JW , Cousins GR , Clift BA , Ridley D , Johnston LR . Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus age and gender matched total knee arthroplasty - functional outcome and survivorship analysis . J Arthroplasty . 2014 ; 29 ( 9 ): 1779 – 1783 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Bhattacharya R , Scott CEH , Morris HE , Wade F , Nutton RW . Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component . Knee . 2012 ; 19 ( 4 ): 348 – 351 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Berend KR , Lombardi AV , Morris MJ , Hurst JM , Kavolus JJ . Does preoperative patellofemoral joint state affect medial unicompartmental arthroplasty survival? Orthopedics . 2011 ; 34 ( 9 ): e494 – 496 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Kazarian GS , Lonner JH , Maltenfort MG , Ghomrawi HMK , Chen AF . Cost-Effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for Unicompartmental knee arthritis: a Markov model . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2018 ; 100-A ( 19 ): 1653 – 1660 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. 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 . PubMed Google Scholar
10. Lombardi AV , Berend KR , Walter CA , Aziz-Jacobo J , Cheney NA . Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2009 ; 467 ( 6 ): 1450 – 1457 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. Isaac SM , Barker KL , Danial IN , Beard DJ , Dodd CA , Murray DW . Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty . Knee . 2007 ; 14 ( 3 ): 212 – 217 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Newman J , Pydisetty RV , Ackroyd C . Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial . J Bone Joint Surg Br . 2009 ; 91-B ( 1 ): 52 – 57 . Google Scholar
13. Pandit H , Hamilton TW , Jenkins C , Mellon SJ , Dodd CAF , Murray DW . The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs . Bone Joint J . 2015 ; 97-B ( 11 ): 1493 – 1500 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Campi S , Pandit H , Hooper G , et al. Ten-Year survival and seven-year functional results of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective consecutive series of our first 1000 cases . Knee . 2018 ; 25 ( 6 ): 1231 – 1237 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Faour-Martín O , Valverde-García JA , Martín-Ferrero MA , et al. Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results . Int Orthop . 2013 ; 37 ( 5 ): 833 – 838 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Lisowski LA , Meijer LI , van den Bekerom MPJ , Pilot P , Lisowski AE . Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford Phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 10_Supple_B ): 41 – 47 . Google Scholar
17. Vorlat P , Putzeys G , Cottenie D , et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis . Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc . 2006 ; 14 ( 1 ): 40 – 45 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
18. Alnachoukati OK , Barrington JW , Berend KR , et al. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties: The First 10-Year US Multi-Center Survival Analysis . J Arthroplasty . 2018 ; 33 ( 3 ): 677 – 683 . Google Scholar
19. Walker T , Hetto P , Bruckner T , et al. Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term . Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc . 2019 ; 27 ( 5 ): 1658 – 1664 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. NZOA . The New Zealand Joint Registry Fifteen Year Report. January 1999 to December 2013 . 2014 . https://nzoa.org.nz/sites/default/files/NZJR2014Report.pdf Google Scholar
21. Niinimäki T , Eskelinen A , Mäkelä K , Ohtonen P , Puhto A-P , Remes V . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2014 ; 472 ( 5 ): 1496 – 1501 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
22. Schroer WC , Barnes CL , Diesfeld P , et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2013 ; 471 ( 11 ): 3533 – 3539 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. Kazarian GS , Barrack TN , Okafor L , Barrack RL , Nunley RM , Lawrie CM . High prevalence of radiographic outliers and revisions with Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2020 ; 102-A ( 13 ): 1151 – 1159 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
24. Robertsson O , Knutson K , Lewold S , Lidgren L . The Swedish knee arthroplasty register 1975-1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988-1997 . Acta Orthop Scand . 2001 ; 72 ( 5 ): 503 – 513 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. Kozinn SC , Marx C , Scott RD . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A 4.5-6-year follow-up study with a metal-backed tibial component . J Arthroplasty . 1989 ; 4 Suppl : S1 – 10 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
26. Kozinn SC , Scott R . Unicondylar knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1989 ; 71-A ( 1 ): 145 – 150 . PubMed Google Scholar
27. Collier MB , Eickmann TH , Sukezaki F , McAuley JP , Engh GA . Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2006 ; 21 ( 6 Suppl 2 ): 108 – 115 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Hamilton WG , Ammeen D , Engh CA , Engh GA . Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2010 ; 25 ( 5 ): 735 – 740 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
29. Lewold S , Robertsson O , Knutson K , Lidgren L . Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish knee arthroplasty study . Acta Orthop Scand . 1998 ; 69 ( 5 ): 469 – 474 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
30. Mariani EM , Bourne MH , Jackson RT , Jackson ST , Jones P . Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2007 ; 22 ( 6 Suppl 2 ): 81 – 84 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
31. Aleto TJ , Berend ME , Ritter MA , Faris PM , Meneghini RM . Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision . J Arthroplasty . 2008 ; 23 ( 2 ): 159 – 163 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
32. Epinette J-A , Brunschweiler B , Mertl P , Mole D , Cazenave A , French Society for Hip and Knee . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees . Orthop Traumatol Surg Res . 2012 ; 98 ( 6 Suppl ): S124 – S130 . Google Scholar
33. Müller PE , Pellengahr C , Witt M , Kircher J , Refior HJ , Jansson V . Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2004 ; 19 ( 3 ): 296 – 301 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Barrett WP , Scott RD . Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1987 ; 69-A ( 9 ): 1328 – 1335 . PubMed Google Scholar
35. Hernigou P , Deschamps G . Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2004 ; 423 : 161 – 165 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
36. Kennedy WR , White RP . Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 1987 ; 221 : 278 – 285 . PubMed Google Scholar
37. Bert K , Smith R . Failures of metal-backed unicompartmental arthroplasty . Knee . 1996 : 41 – 48 . Google Scholar
38. Chatellard R , Sauleau V , Colmar M , et al. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res . 2013 ; 99 ( 4 Suppl ): S219 – S225 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
39. 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 ( 6 ): 1662 – 1670 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
40. 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-B ( 2 ): 188 – 197 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
41. Citak M , Suero EM , Citak M , et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee . 2013 ; 20 ( 4 ): 268 – 271 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
42. Bell SW , Anthony I , Jones B , MacLean A , Rowe P , Blyth M . Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2016 ; 98-A ( 8 ): 627 – 635 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
43. Lonner JH , John TK , Conditt MA . Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2010 ; 468 ( 1 ): 141 – 146 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
44. 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 ( 4 ): 1232 – 1240 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
45. Song E-K , Seon J-K , Yim J-H , Netravali NA , Bargar WL . Robotic-Assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2013 ; 471 ( 1 ): 118 – 126 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
46. Petersen TL , Engh GA . Radiographic assessment of knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 1988 ; 3 ( 1 ): 67 – 72 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
47. Skyttä ET , Lohman M , Tallroth K , Remes V . Comparison of standard anteroposterior knee and hip-to-ankle radiographs in determining the lower limb and implant alignment after total knee arthroplasty . Scand J Surg . 2009 ; 98 ( 4 ): 250 – 253 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
48. McGrory JE , Trousdale RT , Pagnano MW , Nigbur M . Preoperative hip to ankle radiographs in total knee arthroplasty . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2002 ; 404 : 196 – 202 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
49. Tammachote N , Kriengburapha N , Chaiwuttisak A , Kanitnate S , Boontanapibul K . Is regular knee radiograph reliable enough to assess the knee prosthesis position? J Arthroplasty . 2018 ; 33 ( 9 ): 3038 – 3042 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
50. Ritter MA , Davis KE , Meding JB , Pierson JL , Berend ME , Malinzak RA . The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2011 ; 93-A ( 17 ): 1588 – 1596 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
51. Gromov K , Korchi M , Thomsen MG , Husted H , Troelsen A . What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop . 2014 ; 85 ( 5 ): 480 – 487 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
52. Kazarian GS , Lawrie CM , Barrack TN , et al. The impact of surgeon volume and training status on implant alignment in total knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2019 ; 101-A ( 19 ): 1713 – 1723 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
53. Clarius M , Hauck C , Seeger JB , Pritsch M , Merle C , Aldinger PR . Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA . Int Orthop . 2010 ; 34 ( 8 ): 1145 – 1151 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
54. Bollars P , Boeckxstaens A , Mievis J , Kalaai S , Schotanus MGM , Janssen D . Preliminary experience with an image-free handheld robot for total knee arthroplasty: 77 cases compared with a matched control group . Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol . 2020 ; 30 ( 4 ): 723 – 729 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
55. Bush AN , Ziemba-Davis M , Deckard ER , Meneghini RM . An experienced surgeon can meet or exceed robotic accuracy in manual Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2019 ; 101-A ( 16 ): 1479 – 1484 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
56. Lewold S , Goodman S , Knutson K , Robertsson O , Lidgren L . Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study . J Arthroplasty . 1995 ; 10 ( 6 ): 722 – 731 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
57. Price AJ , Svard U . A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011 ; 469 ( 1 ): 174 – 179 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
58. Hansen EN , Ong KL , Lau E , Kurtz SM , Lonner JH . Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large United States databases . J Arthroplasty . 2019 ; 34 ( 8 ): 1617 – 1625 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
59. Koskinen E , Eskelinen A , Paavolainen P , Pulkkinen P , Remes V . Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish arthroplasty register . Acta Orthop . 2008 ; 79 ( 4 ): 499 – 507 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
60. 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-A ( 8 ): 702 – 709 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
61. Badawy M , Fenstad AM , Bartz-Johannessen CA , et al. Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases . BMC Musculoskelet Disord . 2017 ; 18 ( 1 ): 388 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
62. 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 ( 4 ): 342 – 347 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
63. van der List JP , Zuiderbaan HA , Pearle AD . Why do medial Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 5 ): 1016 – 1021 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
64. Hunter DJ , Wilson DR . Role of alignment and biomechanics in osteoarthritis and implications for imaging . Radiol Clin North Am . 2009 ; 47 ( 4 ): 553 – 566 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
G. S. Kazarian: Designed the study, Analyzed and collected the data, Conducted the statistical analysis, Wrote and reviewed the manuscript.
R. L. Barrack: Handled the study funding, Designed and oversaw the study, Analyzed the data, Wrote and reviewed the manuscript.
T. N. Barrack: Collected the data, Conducted the statistical analysis, Analyzed the data, Wrote the manuscript.
C. M. Lawrie: Collected and analyzed the data, Conducted the statistical analysis, Wrote and edited the manuscript.
R. M. Nunley: Handled the study funding, Designed and oversaw the study, Analyzed the data, Wrote and reviewed the manuscript.
Funding statement
This study was externally funded by Stryker (USA). Although none of the authors has received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article, benefits have been or will be received but will be directed solely to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other non-profit organization with which one or more of the authors are associated.
ICMJE COI statement
R. L. Barrack reports royalties and consulting fees from Stryker, and grants from Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work. R. M. Nunley is the treasurer of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), and reports consultancy fees from Smith & Nephew and Zimmer Biomet, and grants from Smith & Nephew and Stryker, outside the submitted work. C. M. Lawrie reports consultancy fees from Zimmer Biomet, and research support from Stryker and Zimmer Biomet, outside the submitted work.
Ethical review statement
Institutional Review Board approval was attained prior to the initiation of this study.
© 2021 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
