MedElevator
Войти в исследования Bone & joint open · 2026
Manual versus robotic-assisted revision total knee arthroplasty for instability : a one-year cohort analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burbelo Alexander, Stone William, Clark Trace, Huffman Andrew B, Murphy Andrew, Potts Christopher E, Bullock Matthew, Caughran Alexander
Аннотация
AIMS: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a treatment option for failed primary TKA but is associated with higher complication rates and technical challenges. Robotic-assisted rTKA (rarTKA) is an emerging technique that may improve component alignment and surgical precision. However, its effect on early postoperative outcomes in rTKA for instability remains unclear.
METHODS: A total of 133 consecutive rTKAs for instability (82 manual and 51 robotic) performed by two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. All rarTKAs used the MAKO robotic-arm system. Operating time, length of stay (LOS), joint line change, posterior condylar offset (PCO) change, and all-cause 30-/90-day complications were compared using univariable analyses. Revision implant constructs were also compared. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at three months and one year, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed one-year reoperation-free survival.
RESULTS: RarTKA achieved a greater mean increase in PCO (3.4 mm vs 1.5 mm; p = 0.014), but required a longer operating time (186 minutes vs 173 minutes; p = 0.037). Joint line change, LOS, three-month KOOS-JR, and ROM did not differ significantly. The 30-day (4.9% vs 7.8%) and 90-day (7.3% vs 11.8%) complication rates and one-year reoperation-free survival (91.5% vs 94.1%; p = 0.900) were comparable. Although offset couplers were not used, rarTKA constructs incorporated augments more frequently.
CONCLUSION: RarTKA demonstrated early postoperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of conventional manual rTKA, while achieving improved PCO restoration despite longer operating times. LOS, functional outcomes, and one-year survivorship were similar between groups. Overall, rarTKA appears to be safe and effective; however, further investigation is required to determine the long-term benefits and clinical significance.
METHODS: A total of 133 consecutive rTKAs for instability (82 manual and 51 robotic) performed by two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. All rarTKAs used the MAKO robotic-arm system. Operating time, length of stay (LOS), joint line change, posterior condylar offset (PCO) change, and all-cause 30-/90-day complications were compared using univariable analyses. Revision implant constructs were also compared. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at three months and one year, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed one-year reoperation-free survival.
RESULTS: RarTKA achieved a greater mean increase in PCO (3.4 mm vs 1.5 mm; p = 0.014), but required a longer operating time (186 minutes vs 173 minutes; p = 0.037). Joint line change, LOS, three-month KOOS-JR, and ROM did not differ significantly. The 30-day (4.9% vs 7.8%) and 90-day (7.3% vs 11.8%) complication rates and one-year reoperation-free survival (91.5% vs 94.1%; p = 0.900) were comparable. Although offset couplers were not used, rarTKA constructs incorporated augments more frequently.
CONCLUSION: RarTKA demonstrated early postoperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of conventional manual rTKA, while achieving improved PCO restoration despite longer operating times. LOS, functional outcomes, and one-year survivorship were similar between groups. Overall, rarTKA appears to be safe and effective; however, further investigation is required to determine the long-term benefits and clinical significance.