Cargando…

Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique

PURPOSE: Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) remains in its infancy, is expensive but offers the promise of improved kinematic performance through precise bone cuts, with minimal soft tissue disruption, based on pre-resection soft tissue behaviour. This cadaveric study examined load transf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manning, William, Ghosh, Milton, Wilson, Ian, Hide, Geoff, Longstaff, Lee, Deehan, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31352497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05631-y
_version_ 1783578714687143936
author Manning, William
Ghosh, Milton
Wilson, Ian
Hide, Geoff
Longstaff, Lee
Deehan, David
author_facet Manning, William
Ghosh, Milton
Wilson, Ian
Hide, Geoff
Longstaff, Lee
Deehan, David
author_sort Manning, William
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) remains in its infancy, is expensive but offers the promise of improved kinematic performance through precise bone cuts, with minimal soft tissue disruption, based on pre-resection soft tissue behaviour. This cadaveric study examined load transfer, soft tissue performance and radiographic indices for conventional (sTKA) versus rTKA. The null hypothesis was there would be no difference between the two modes of implantation. METHODS: Whole (ten) cadaveric limbs were randomised to receive either robotic (rTKA, N = 5) or conventional measured resection (sTKA, N = 5) knee arthroplasty. Laxity patterns were established using validated fixed sensors (Verasense) with manual maximum displacement for six degrees of freedom. Tibiofemoral load and contact points were determined dynamically using remote sensor technology for medial and lateral compartments through a functional arc of motion (0–110 degrees of motion). Final component position was assessed using pre- and post-implantation CT. RESULTS: No significant intergroup differences for laxity were found (n.s.). The rTKA group exhibited consistently balanced mediolateral load throughout the full arc with significantly reduced overall total load across the joint (for distinct points of measurement, p < 0.05). Despite using flexion–extension and mediolateral gap balancing with measured resection, the sTKA group failed to achieve balance in at least three points of the flexion arc. Post-operative CT confirmed satisfactory component alignment with no significant differences for positioning between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This work found improved load sharing for rTKA when compared to conventional surgery for same donor knees. Laxity and CT determined final component positioning was not significantly different. The work supports the contention that robot-assisted TKA delivers improved tibiofemoral load sharing in time zero studies under defined conditions but such offers the promise of improved clinical performance and reduced implant wear.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7471111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74711112020-09-16 Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique Manning, William Ghosh, Milton Wilson, Ian Hide, Geoff Longstaff, Lee Deehan, David Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee PURPOSE: Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) remains in its infancy, is expensive but offers the promise of improved kinematic performance through precise bone cuts, with minimal soft tissue disruption, based on pre-resection soft tissue behaviour. This cadaveric study examined load transfer, soft tissue performance and radiographic indices for conventional (sTKA) versus rTKA. The null hypothesis was there would be no difference between the two modes of implantation. METHODS: Whole (ten) cadaveric limbs were randomised to receive either robotic (rTKA, N = 5) or conventional measured resection (sTKA, N = 5) knee arthroplasty. Laxity patterns were established using validated fixed sensors (Verasense) with manual maximum displacement for six degrees of freedom. Tibiofemoral load and contact points were determined dynamically using remote sensor technology for medial and lateral compartments through a functional arc of motion (0–110 degrees of motion). Final component position was assessed using pre- and post-implantation CT. RESULTS: No significant intergroup differences for laxity were found (n.s.). The rTKA group exhibited consistently balanced mediolateral load throughout the full arc with significantly reduced overall total load across the joint (for distinct points of measurement, p < 0.05). Despite using flexion–extension and mediolateral gap balancing with measured resection, the sTKA group failed to achieve balance in at least three points of the flexion arc. Post-operative CT confirmed satisfactory component alignment with no significant differences for positioning between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This work found improved load sharing for rTKA when compared to conventional surgery for same donor knees. Laxity and CT determined final component positioning was not significantly different. The work supports the contention that robot-assisted TKA delivers improved tibiofemoral load sharing in time zero studies under defined conditions but such offers the promise of improved clinical performance and reduced implant wear. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-07-27 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7471111/ /pubmed/31352497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05631-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Knee
Manning, William
Ghosh, Milton
Wilson, Ian
Hide, Geoff
Longstaff, Lee
Deehan, David
Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title_full Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title_fullStr Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title_full_unstemmed Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title_short Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
title_sort improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31352497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05631-y
work_keys_str_mv AT manningwilliam improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique
AT ghoshmilton improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique
AT wilsonian improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique
AT hidegeoff improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique
AT longstafflee improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique
AT deehandavid improvedmediolateralloaddistributionwithoutadverselaxitypatterninrobotassistedkneearthroplastycomparedtoastandardmanualmeasuredresectiontechnique