Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term outcomes of robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes in patients treated with robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty (PFA).

Methods

This technique offers a safe, reliable, and reproducible way of obtaining correct implant positioning in patello-femoral arthroplasty, and as a result, reduces revision surgery due to implant malalignment. We evaluated 30 knees in 29 patients who underwent robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty between June 2009 and May 2011. Mean follow-up was 15.9 months. This was a retrospective study that involved chart reviews and radiographic analysis. Radiographic analysis included pre-operative and postoperative plain films for implant positioning. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), range of motion, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) patient activity-level ratings, visual analog pain scale (VAS), and the Knee Society Score (KSS).

Results

The patients had an average OKS of 21.7 pre-operatively and reached an average of 33.5 postoperatively (p = 0.0033). Pre-operative UCLA patient activity-level ratings was 3.1, compared with 4.8 postoperatively. Average VAS pre-operatively was 8 and postoperatively it decreased to 2.1 (p = 0.0033). The average KSS final score pre-operatively was 56 and postoperatively it increased to 68.3 while the functional score pre-operatively was 47.2 compared to 68.1 postoperatively (p = 0.011). As a result, patello-femoral arthroplasty is an emerging knee resurfacing technique that is an alternative to the total knee arthroplasty.

Conclusions

The early retrospective data for robotically-assisted PFA show encouraging results. Advantages of this technique include a smaller incision, faster rehabilitation, preservation of bone stock, and implantation without malalignment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davies AP, Vince AS, Shepstone L, Donell ST, Glasgow MM (2002) The radiologic prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 402:206–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackroyd CE, Polyzoides AJ (1978) Patellectomy for osteoarthritis. A study of 81 patients followed for 2–22 years. J Bone Joint Surg 60-B:353–357

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Laskin RS, Van Steijn M (1999) Total knee replacement for patients with patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ackroyd CE, Chir B (2005) Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 436:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2005) The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: an analysis of reported indications, contraindications and failure. Clin Orthop 436:91–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Khefacha A (2005) Long-term results with the first patellofemoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop 436:47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A (2011) Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1677-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Cartier P (2010) UKA in combination with PFR at average 12-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(10):1227–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Montironi F, Pullen C (2008) Tissue sparing surgery in knee reconstruction: unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), UKA + PFA, bi-unicompartmental (Bi-UKA) arthroplasties. J Orthop Traumatol 9(3):171–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Koller U, Apprich S, Domayer S, Windhager R, Trattnig S (2014) Magnetic resonance mapping of the rim of articular cartilage defects of the patella. Int Orthop 38(1):67–72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Petersen W, Rembitzki IV, Brüggemann GP, Ellermann A, Best R, Koppenburg AG, Liebau C (2014) Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Int Orthop 38(2):319–328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Župan A, Snoj Ž, Antolič V, Pompe B (2014) Better results with patelloplasty compared to traditional total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(8):1621–1625

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zanasi S (2011) Innovations in total knee replacement: new trends in operative treatment and changes in peri-operative management. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2(1–2):21–31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Argenson JN, Flecher X, Parratte S et al (2005) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: an update. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:50–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Evans R et al (2007) The Avon patellofemoral arthrolasty: five year survivorship and functional results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 89(3):310–315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Scheurer P, Reininga IH, van Jonbergen HP, van Raay JJ (2015) Secondary patellar resurfacing following total knee arthroplasty: a cohort study in fifty eight knees with a mean follow-up of thirty one months. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2684-z

  17. Schiavone Panni A, Cerciello S, Del Regno C, Felici A, Vasso M (2014) Patellar resurfacing complications in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(2):313–317

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Arciero RA, Toomey HE (1988) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A three-to nine-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blazina ME, Fox JM, Del PW et al (1979) Patellofemoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 144:98–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. de Winter WE, Feith R, van Loon CJ (2001) The Richards type II patellofemoral arthroplasty: 26 cases followed for 1–20 years. Acta Orthop Scand 72:487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Jonbergen HP, Werkman DM, Barnaart LF, van Kampen A (2010) Long-term outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(7):1066–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tauro B, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Shah NA (2001) The Lubinus patellofemoral arthroplasty. A five- to ten-year prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 83:696–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. van Wagenberg JMF, Speigner B, Gosens T, Waal MJ (2009) Midterm clinical result of the Autocentric II patellofemoral prosthesis. Int Orthop 33:1603–1608

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Odumenya M, Costa ML, Parsons N, Achten J, Dihillon M, Krikler SJ (2010) The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement five-years results from an independent center. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92-B:56–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mont MA, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Kolisek FR, Leadbetter WB (2012) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: 7-year mean follow-up. J Arthroplasty 27(3):358-361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gao X, Xu Z, He R, Yan S, Wu L (2010) A preliminary report of patellofemoral arthroplasty in isolated patellofemoral arthritis. Chin Med J 123(21):3020–3023

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lang JE, Mannava S, Floyd AJ, Goddard MS, Smith BP, Mofidi A, Seyler TM, Jinnah RH (2011) Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93(10):1296–1299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dabboussi N, Sakr M, Girard J, Fakih R (2012) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study to the standard approach. N Am J Med Sci 4(2):81–85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turgut Ozal University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Ugur Turktas

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ondokuzmayis University School of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey

    Ahmet Piskin

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Gary G. Poehling

Authors
  1. Ugur Turktas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmet Piskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary G. Poehling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugur Turktas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turktas, U., Piskin, A. & Poehling, G.G. Short-term outcomes of robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 919–924 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2786-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2786-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation