Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39720228›Full record

ArticleJBJS essential surgical techniques

Robotic-Assisted Conversion of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Nicolas S Piuzzi, Nickelas Huffman, Alex Lancaster, Matthew E Deren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicolas S PiuzziDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3007-7538
Nickelas HuffmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0610-3919
Alex LancasterDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8006-9339
Matthew E DerenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6010-7748

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39720228
PMCPMC11661718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.