Cargando…
A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty typically necessitates use of tracking pins, which can vary in diameter. Complications such as infections and fractures at the pin-site have been observed, but clarification of the effect of pin diameter on complication is needed. The aim of this stu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10006377/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36897468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00584-1 |
_version_ | 1784905284719738880 |
---|---|
author | Desai, Sohil S. Kunes, Jennifer A. Held, Michael B. Ren, Mark deMeireles, Alirio J. Geller, Jeffrey A. Shah, Roshan P. Cooper, H. John |
author_facet | Desai, Sohil S. Kunes, Jennifer A. Held, Michael B. Ren, Mark deMeireles, Alirio J. Geller, Jeffrey A. Shah, Roshan P. Cooper, H. John |
author_sort | Desai, Sohil S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty typically necessitates use of tracking pins, which can vary in diameter. Complications such as infections and fractures at the pin-site have been observed, but clarification of the effect of pin diameter on complication is needed. The aim of this study is to compare the pin-related complication rates following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm diameter pins. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 90-day pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty were compared between 4.5 mm diameter and 3.2 mm diameter groups. In total, 367 patients were included: 177 with large pin diameter and 190 with small pin diameter. All four pin sites were evaluated using postoperative radiographs. Cases without orthogonal views or visualization of all four pin tracts were noted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for age, which differed between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The rate of pin-site complications was 5.6% in the large pin diameter cohort and 2.6% in the small pin diameter cohort, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. The adjusted odds ratio for complications in small compared to large diameter group was 0.48, with a p-value of 0.18. The most common pin-site complication was infection/persistent drainage, found in 1.9% of patients, followed by intraoperative fracture of the second cortex in 1.4%. Intraoperative fracture could not be ruled out in 96 cases due to inadequate radiographic visualization of all pin sites. There was one postoperative pin-site fracture in the large diameter cohort, which required operative fixation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm pin diameter cohorts, although there was a trend towards increased intraoperative and postoperative pin-site fractures in the 4.5 mm group. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10006377 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100063772023-03-12 A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty Desai, Sohil S. Kunes, Jennifer A. Held, Michael B. Ren, Mark deMeireles, Alirio J. Geller, Jeffrey A. Shah, Roshan P. Cooper, H. John J Exp Orthop Original Paper PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty typically necessitates use of tracking pins, which can vary in diameter. Complications such as infections and fractures at the pin-site have been observed, but clarification of the effect of pin diameter on complication is needed. The aim of this study is to compare the pin-related complication rates following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm diameter pins. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 90-day pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty were compared between 4.5 mm diameter and 3.2 mm diameter groups. In total, 367 patients were included: 177 with large pin diameter and 190 with small pin diameter. All four pin sites were evaluated using postoperative radiographs. Cases without orthogonal views or visualization of all four pin tracts were noted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for age, which differed between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The rate of pin-site complications was 5.6% in the large pin diameter cohort and 2.6% in the small pin diameter cohort, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. The adjusted odds ratio for complications in small compared to large diameter group was 0.48, with a p-value of 0.18. The most common pin-site complication was infection/persistent drainage, found in 1.9% of patients, followed by intraoperative fracture of the second cortex in 1.4%. Intraoperative fracture could not be ruled out in 96 cases due to inadequate radiographic visualization of all pin sites. There was one postoperative pin-site fracture in the large diameter cohort, which required operative fixation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm pin diameter cohorts, although there was a trend towards increased intraoperative and postoperative pin-site fractures in the 4.5 mm group. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10006377/ /pubmed/36897468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00584-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Desai, Sohil S. Kunes, Jennifer A. Held, Michael B. Ren, Mark deMeireles, Alirio J. Geller, Jeffrey A. Shah, Roshan P. Cooper, H. John A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title | A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title_full | A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title_fullStr | A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title_short | A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
title_sort | comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10006377/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36897468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00584-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT desaisohils acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT kunesjennifera acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT heldmichaelb acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT renmark acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT demeirelesalirioj acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT gellerjeffreya acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT shahroshanp acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT cooperhjohn acomparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT desaisohils comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT kunesjennifera comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT heldmichaelb comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT renmark comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT demeirelesalirioj comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT gellerjeffreya comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT shahroshanp comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty AT cooperhjohn comparisonofpinsitecomplicationsbetweenlargeandsmallpindiametersinroboticassistedtotalkneearthroplasty |