ArticleJBJS essential surgical techniques
Robotic-Assisted Conversion of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in JBJS essential surgical techniques. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technology-assisted revision knee arthroplasty reduces radiographic outliers compared with standard revision knee surgery: A systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- Improved Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Revision of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the CORISICOT-J · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Conversion of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Surgical Technique Review.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Closing the Satisfaction Gap: Medial UKA and Cruciate-Retaining TKA Yield Comparable 1-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures have become much more common in the United States in recent years, with >40,000 UKAs performed annually Description: Robotic-assisted TKA is performed with the patient in the supine position, under spinal anesthesia, and with use of a tourniquet. A limited incision is made approximately 1 cm medial to a standard midline incision, through the previous UKA incision. A medial parapatellar arthrotomy and partial synovectomy are performed. Array pins are placed in a standard fashion: intra-incisional in the femoral diaphysis and extra-incisional in the distal tibial diaphysis. Femoral and tibial bone registration is performed, along with functional knee balancing to adjust implant positioning. The robotic arm-assisted system is then utilized to achieve the planned bone resections. After completing all bone cuts, trial components are inserted. Trial reduction is then performed, and knee extension, stability, and range of motion are assessed. The final implant is cemented into place. We utilize a cruciate-retaining TKA implant. No augments are required. Alternatives: An alternative treatment option is manual UKA to TKA conversion. Rationale: Robotic-assisted conversion of UKA to TKA is especially useful for patients requiring bone preservation. For example, 1 case series found that the use of robotic-assisted conversion of UKA to TKA resulted in a decreased use of augments and a smaller average polyethylene insert thickness compared with manual conversion. Furthermore, mechanical bone loss may occur secondary to implant loosening. Thus, in patients with aseptic loosening, robotic-assisted conversion of UKA to TKA may be useful Expected Outcomes: Results of robotic-assisted conversion of UKA to TKA have thus far been excellent. In a study of 4 patients undergoing robotic-assisted conversion of UKA to TKA, all patients experienced uneventful recoveries without any need for subsequent re-revision Important Tips: Ensure accurate soft-tissue balancing prior to implant removal and osseous resection.Augments can easily be cut by executing the initial cut, then moving the resection depth either 5 or 10 mm deeper. The cut is then performed only in the compartment that needs an augment. Augment cutting is usually performed in a stepwise fashion to avoid excessive resection in the other compartments in order to preserve native bone.Having revision implants with increased constraint and metaphyseal fixation available is important during these cases because, as in any revision surgery, unexpected events can lead to the need for other implant choices. Acronyms and Abbreviations: UKA = unicompartmental knee arthroplastyRA = robotic-assistedTKA = total knee arthroplastyROM = range of motionCT = computed tomographyPCL = posterior cruciate ligamentDVT = deep venous thrombosisVTE = venous thromboembolism.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.