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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Desai, Sohil S., Kunes, Jennifer A., Held, Michael B., Ren, Mark, deMeireles, Alirio J., Geller, Jeffrey A., Shah, Roshan P., Cooper, H. John
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