Search

Background: One-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BUKA) is a promising option for patients with bilateral medial knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to compare the safety, early clinical and functional outcomes, and radiological results of conventional vs robotic-assisted medial BUKA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who underwent medial BUKA as a single-stage procedure between April 2016 and January 2022. The study included both conventional (36 procedures) and robotic-assisted techniques (90 procedures) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Conventional procedures were performed either simultaneously by two surgical teams or sequentially by one team. Robotic procedures were exclusively performed sequentially by a single team. Data on surgical outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (International Knee Society score), and radiographic measurements were collected. Results: Among the 63 patients analyzed, robotic-assisted procedures took significantly longer (115 ± 22 minutes) compared to conventional approaches (86.9 ± 12 minutes; P < .0001). No significant differences were observed in complications, length of hospital stay, rehospitalizations, patient-reported outcome measures, or overall clinical outcomes. However, radiographic analysis showed superior joint line restoration in the robotic group (−0.2 ± 0.7 mm vs −1.4 ± 1.35 mm, P = .03) and better tibial implant varus control (0.3° ± 0.6 vs 1° ± 1.8 degrees, P = .03). Conclusions: While robotic-assisted BUKA resulted in longer operative times, clinical outcomes were comparable. Radiographic findings indicated improved implant positioning, suggesting potential benefits in implantation accuracy that warrant further research. Level of Evidence: IV.

Background: Predictive modeling promises to improve our understanding of what variables influence patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this article was to systematically review the relevant literature using predictive models of clinical outcomes after TKA. The aim was to identify the predictor strategies used for systematic data collection with the highest likelihood of success in predicting clinical outcomes. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic review was conducted using 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) to identify all clinical studies that had used predictive models or that assessed predictive features for outcomes after TKA between 1996 and 2020. The ROBINS-I tool was used to evaluate the quality of the studies and the risk of bias. Results: A total of 75 studies were identified of which 48 met our inclusion criteria. Preoperative predictive factors strongly associated with postoperative clinical outcomes were knee pain, knee-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) scores, and mental health scores. Demographic characteristics, pre-existing comorbidities, and knee alignment had an inconsistent association with outcomes. The outcome measures that correlated best with the predictive models were improvement of PROM scores, pain scores, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Several algorithms, based on PROM improvement, patient satisfaction, or pain after TKA, have been developed to improve decision-making regarding both indications for surgery and surgical strategy. Functional features such as preoperative pain and PROM scores were highly predictive for clinical outcomes after TKA. Some variables such as demographics data or knee alignment were less strongly correlated with TKA outcomes. Level of evidence: Systematic review – Level III.