Clinical outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: robotic assistance produces superior short and mid-term outcomes

Introduction Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been shown to provide symptomatic improvement for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). The efficacy of robotic-assisted PFA and the most suitable PFA implant design, however, remain ongoing matters of debate. This study sought to compare c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery 2024-09, Vol.144 (9), p.4017-4028
Hauptverfasser: Katzman, Jonathan L., Buehring, Weston, Haider, Muhammad A., Connolly, Patrick, Schwarzkopf, Ran, Fernandez-Madrid, Ivan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been shown to provide symptomatic improvement for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). The efficacy of robotic-assisted PFA and the most suitable PFA implant design, however, remain ongoing matters of debate. This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent robotic-assisted versus conventional PFAs with inlay and onlay prosthetic designs. Methods A single-center retrospective review found 237 knees (211 patients) which underwent PFA between 2011 and 2021. One hundred eighty-four knees were included in the final analysis after cases were excluded for having indications other than osteoarthritis or having less than one year of follow-up. There were 90 conventional PFAs and 94 robotic-assisted PFAs performed. Inlay components were implanted in 89 knees and onlay components were implanted in 95 knees. Propensity score matching was utilized to address demographic differences between groups. Results Overall, there was a revision-free survivorship rate of 89.7% with an average time to follow-up of 4.6 years (range 1.2 to 11.1). Twenty-nine knees (15.8%) required various non-conversion procedures. The conventional matched cohort exhibited a higher all-cause revision rate, accounting for revision PFAs and conversions to TKA, (18.8 vs. 6.4%, p = 0.014) and a shorter mean time to revision than the robotic-assisted cohort (3.1 vs. 5.8 years, p = 0.026). A Kaplan–Meier survivorship curve showed differences between the conventional and robotics cohorts (p = 0.041). All revisions following robotic-assisted PFA were caused by progression of osteoarthritis, whereas conventional PFAs also required revision due to aseptic loosening and patellar maltracking. The rate of infection resulting in irrigation and debridement was higher for conventional cases (4.3 vs. 0%, p = 0.041). No significant differences in clinical outcomes between the inlay and onlay prosthetic design matched cohorts were identified. Conclusion PFA is an effective treatment for addressing advanced patellofemoral arthritis. Robotic-assisted surgery may lead to improved clinical outcomes. Level of evidence III.
ISSN:1434-3916
0936-8051
1434-3916
DOI:10.1007/s00402-024-05263-z