Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Partial Knee Arthroplasty pp 123–132Cite as

Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) is a highly effective treatment for isolated compartmental arthritis in the knee, especially among high volume surgeons. Implant loosening and technical problems related to bone resection and implant positioning may lead to higher rates of failure compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for low volume and novice surgeons. Robotic-assisted UKA was developed in an effort to improve implant positioning and kinematics, reduce technical error, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Two semiautonomous robotic systems have demonstrated high levels of accuracy and precision compared to conventional techniques, quantify soft tissue balance, and preserve the bone by optimizing bony resections. Short-term clinical data is encouraging, but mid- and long-term data is needed to confirm that clinical benefits arise from the enhanced precision of robotic assistance. Cost-effectiveness and surgical efficiency continue to serve as barriers to more widespread adoption of robotic technology. Future study of mid- and long-term outcomes, as well as patient functional outcomes, will provide important insight into the cost-benefit analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lum ZC, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Berend KR. Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-b:28–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD. Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2015;22(6):454–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. New Zealand Joint Registry. http://www.nzoa.org.nz/news/new-zealand-joint-registry-thirteen-year-report.

  4. Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicenter study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:S124–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA. Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(6 Suppl 2):108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE. Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2003;18(7 Suppl 1):2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E, McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA. Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(6 Suppl 2):98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y. Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:44–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;88:188–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA. Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg. 2002;15:17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;423:161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(3):506–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lonner JH. Robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with a handheld image-free sculpting tool. Orthop Clin North Am. 2016;47:29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Orthopedic Network News. Hip and knee implant review. 2013. Available at: www.OrthopedicNetworkNews.com. 24 July 2013.

  15. Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry. March 5, 2015. http://www.mddionline.com.

  16. Dalton DM, Burke TP, Kelly EG, Curtin PD. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in knee arthroplasty: using patent and publication metrics to identify developments and trends. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:1366–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:31–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lonner JH, Moretti VM. The evolution of image-free robotic assistance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(5):249–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van der List JP, Chawla H, Pearle AD. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an overview. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):202–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:2353–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;98:627–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(5):803–808.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(2):230–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee. 2013;20:268–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S, et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:837167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. MacCallum KP, Danoff JR, Geller JA. Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26:93–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansen DC, Kusuma SK, Palmer RM, Harris KB. Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:1784–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith JR, Picard F, Rowe PJ. The accuracy of a robotically-controlled freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2013;95(Suppl):68.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Smith JR, Riches PE, Rowe PJ. Accuracy of a freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee replacement. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10:162–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, et al. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:206–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Picard F, Gregori A, Bellemans J, et al. Handheld robot-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a clinical review. 14th annual meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery. Milan, Italy, June 18–21, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ponzio DY, Lonner JH. Robotic technology produces more conservative tibial resection than conventional techniques in UKA. Am J Orthop. 2016;45:e465–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwarzkopf R, Mikhael B, Li L. Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e409–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6:631–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee. 2017;24:419–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(2):198–204.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(9 Suppl):168–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH. Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2 Suppl):32–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? a markov decision analysis. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:759–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lonner JH. Robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with a handheld image-free sculpting tool. Oper Tech Orthop. 2015;25:104–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wallace D, Gregori A, Picard F, et al. The learning curve of a novel handheld robotic system for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Paper presented at: 14th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery. Milan, Italy, June 18–21, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jinnah R, Horowitz S, Lippincott C, et al. The learning curve of robotically assisted UKA. 22nd annual Congress of ISTA. Big Island, October 22–24, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr, et al. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(5):735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:481039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Coon TM. Integrating robotic technology into the operating room. Am J Orthop. 2009;38:7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ponzio DY, Lonner JH. Preoperative mapping in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using computed tomography scans is associated with radiation exposure and carries high cost. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:964–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wysocki RW, Sheinkop MB, Virkus WW, et al. Femoral fracture through a previous pin site after computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:462–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sinha RK. Outcomes of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2 Suppl):20–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, Kim YH, Yoo MC, Rhyu KH. Causes and patterns of aborting a robot-assisted arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:621–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lonner JH, Kerr GJ. Low rate of iatrogenic complications during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with two semi-autonomous robotic systems, Jess Lonner, MD unpublished data.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rothman Institute, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Andrew Battenberg & Jess Lonner

  2. Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Hospital Sainte Marguerite, Marseille, France

    Sébastien Parratte

Authors
  1. Andrew Battenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sébastien Parratte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jess Lonner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Jean-Noël A. Argenson

  2. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, Towson, MD, USA

    David F. Dalury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Battenberg, A., Parratte, S., Lonner, J. (2019). Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. In: Argenson, JN., Dalury, D. (eds) Partial Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94249-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94250-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation