0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Authors - did you know SICOT-J has been awarded the DOAJ Seal for "best practice in open access publishing"?

      • Indexed in Scopus
      • 30% discount on article processing charges (APCs) for members of SICOT

      Instructions for authors, online submissions and free e-mail alerts all available here 

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Short-term functional outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA are better with functional alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment

      research-article
      1 , * , , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1
      SICOT-J
      EDP Sciences
      TKA, Ligament balancing, Adjusted mechanical alignment, MAKO, Functional alignment

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Ligament balancing is essential to the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The optimal method of alignment remains a controversial issue. The primary objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of TKA between functional and adjusted mechanical alignment techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare bone resection, robotic alignment, and radiological assessment. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective case-control series comparing TKA performed with functional alignment (FA) and adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA). Sixty-four FA subjects were matched with 64 aMA controls. These two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgeon, and type of frontal deformity. Both surgical procedures were performed using the MAKO ® haptic robotic system. Functional scores (Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS)) were measured at the final postoperative follow-up. A radiographic evaluation was performed at the same time. Results: Mean FJS were respectively 63.4 ± 25.1 [0–100] and 51.2 ± 31.8 [0–100] in FA versus aMA group ( p = 0.034). Mean OKS were respectively 40.8 ± 6.3 [21–48] and 34.9 ± 11.8 [3–48] in FA versus aMA group ( p = 0.027). Mean KSS were respectively 184.9 ± 17.0 [126–200] and 175.6 ± 23.1 [102–200] in FA versus aMA group ( p = 0.02). The main residual symptom was “none” for 73.0% versus 57.8%, “instability” for 6.4% versus 21.9%, “Pain” for 19.1% versus 12.5%, and “effusion” for 1.6% and 7.8% respectively for FA and aMA group ( p = 0.016). There were 4 complications in the FA group versus 5 in the aMA group ( p > 0.999). Mean postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) robotic assessment were respectively 177.3° ± 2.0 [172–180] and 178.2° ± 2.0 [173–180] for FA and aMA group ( p = 0.018). The median difference between HKA robotic and HKA radiological was −3.0° (IQR = 3.0; p < 0.001). Conclusion: With greater residual deformity and without release, functional alignment showed a statistically significantly better short-term clinical outcome than adjusted mechanical alignment. This difference may not be clinically significant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

          Despite substantial advances in primary TKA, numerous studies using historic TKA implants suggest only 82% to 89% of primary TKA patients are satisfied. We reexamined this issue to determine if contemporary TKA implants might be associated with improved patient satisfaction. We performed a cross-sectional study of patient satisfaction after 1703 primary TKAs performed in the province of Ontario. Our data confirmed that approximately one in five (19%) primary TKA patients were not satisfied with the outcome. Satisfaction with pain relief varied from 72-86% and with function from 70-84% for specific activities of daily living. The strongest predictors of patient dissatisfaction after primary TKA were expectations not met (10.7x greater risk), a low 1-year WOMAC (2.5x greater risk), preoperative pain at rest (2.4x greater risk) and a postoperative complication requiring hospital readmission (1.9x greater risk). Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality of life after total knee arthroplasty.

            Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) results in a high degree of patient satisfaction, as it provides patients with considerable medium- and long-term benefits in terms of quality of life, pain relief and function. Nevertheless, the literature reports that up to 30% of patients are dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction is directly related to the patients' quality of life, which they deem insufficient. Their quality of life depends on many physical, behavioural, social and psychological factors that are not taken into account by functional outcome scores. After describing the principles of quality of life evaluation after TKA, we will assess the effects of patient-related factors, the surgical technique and postoperative program through an exhaustive review of the literature. Patient expectations after TKA will then be outlined, particularly return to work and return to sports.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.

              In spite of improvements in implant designs and surgical precision, functional outcomes of mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MA TKA) have plateaued. This suggests probable technical intrinsic limitations that few alternate more anatomical recently promoted surgical techniques are trying to solve. This review aims at (1) classifying the different options to frontally align TKA implants, (2) at comparing their safety and efficacy with the one from MA TKAs, therefore answering the following questions: does alternative techniques to position TKA improve functional outcomes of TKA (question 1)? Is there any pathoanatomy not suitable for kinematic implantation of a TKA (question 2)? A systematic review of the existing literature utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar search engines was performed in February 2017. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last ten years in either English or French were reviewed. We identified 569 reports, of which 13 met our eligibility criteria. Four alternative techniques to position a TKA are challenging the traditional MA technique: anatomic (AA), adjusted mechanical (aMA), kinematic (KA), and restricted kinematic (rKA) alignment techniques. Regarding osteoarthritic patients with slight to mid constitutional knee frontal deformity, the KA technique enables a faster recovery and generally generates higher functional TKA outcomes than the MA technique. Kinematic alignment for TKA is a new attractive technique for TKA at early to mid-term, but need longer follow-up in order to assess its true value. It is probable that some forms of pathoanatomy might affect longer-term clinical outcomes of KA TKA and make the rKA technique or additional surgical corrections (realignment osteotomy, retinacular ligament reconstruction etc.) relevant for this sub-group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed to define the best indication of each alternative surgical technique for TKA. Level I for question 1 (systematic review of Level I studies), level 4 for question 2.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                SICOT J
                SICOT J
                sicotj
                SICOT-J
                EDP Sciences
                2426-8887
                2024
                18 January 2024
                : 10
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department, CHU Nîmes, University Montpellier 1, Nîmes Place du Professeur Robert Debré 30029 Nîmes France
                [2 ] Laboratory LMGC, CNRS UMR 5508, University of Montpellier II 860 Rue de St – Priest 34090 Montpellier France
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: micho.jc@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9841-5200
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0717-9600
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7967-9356
                Article
                sicotj230080 10.1051/sicotj/2024002
                10.1051/sicotj/2024002
                10798231
                38240728
                d47c958f-8b12-4a75-90d2-1c669f8eb3b5
                © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2024

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 September 2023
                : 03 January 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 34, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Original Article
                Knee

                tka,ligament balancing,adjusted mechanical alignment,mako,functional alignment

                Comments

                Comment on this article