Search

Background: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been shown to reduce the number of alignment outliers and to improve component positioning compared to manual TKA (mTKA). The primary purpose of this investigation was to compare the frequency of achieving target postoperative limb alignment and component positioning for rTKA vs mTKA. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed on 250 patients undergoing primary TKA by 2 fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Surgeon A performed predominantly rTKA (103 cases) with the ROSA system (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) and less frequently mTKA (44 cases) with conventional instrumentation. Surgeon B performed only mTKA (103 cases). Target limb alignment for surgeon A was 0° for all cases and for surgeon B was 2° varus for varus knees and 0° for valgus knees. Radiographic measurements were determined by 2 reviewers. Target zone was set at ± 2 degrees from the predefined target. Results: When comparing rTKA to mTKA performed by different surgeons, there were no differences in the percentage within the target zone (57.28% vs 53.40%, P = .575), but rTKA did result in a greater percentage for cases with preoperative valgus (71.42% vs 44.12%, P = .031). Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 physical scores were statistically higher at both 3 (P = .016) and 6 months (P = .001) postoperatively for rTKA compared to mTKA performed by different surgeons. Conclusions: Although experienced surgeons can achieve target limb alignment correction with similar frequency when comparing rTKA to mTKA for all cases, rTKA may achieve target limb alignment with more accuracy for preoperative valgus deformity. Level of Evidence: Retrospective Cohort Study, Level III.

Background: Many institutions require the routine collection of pathology samples from every primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed. These policies are controversial, and their cost-effectiveness is difficult to define. We sought to judge the cost-effectiveness of one such policy according to World Health Organization recommendations. Methods: We analyzed 3200 consecutive primary TKAs, comparing our presumed preoperative diagnoses against the diagnoses made by the pathologist. Diagnoses were categorized as concordant (matching), discrepant (not matching but without impact to patient management), or discordant (not matching and resulting in a direct change to patient management). An incremental cost-utility ratio analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of our institution’s policy to routinely collect pathology samples from every primary TKA performed. Cost-effectiveness was defined by World Health Organization guidelines as a cost of less than $228,090 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Results: Twelve pathology samples were lost before reaching a pathologist. From the remaining 3188 samples, we identified 3158 concordant cases, 29 discrepant diagnoses, and 1 discordant diagnosis. It cost an estimated $10,522.60 to identify each discrepant diagnosis and an estimated $305,155.36 to diagnose one discordant case in our cohort. Our incremental cost-utility ratio analysis revealed that we spent $305,155.36 to gain 0 quality-adjusted life years for our patients. Conclusions: Routine histopathologic analysis of TKA samples was cost-ineffective in our patient cohort and may not be necessary during routine TKA.

Background: Successful fixation of the greater trochanter (GT) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging task. A wide range of clinical results are reported in the literature despite advancements in fixation technology. Previous studies may have lacked adequate sample sizes to detect differences. This study evaluates nonunion and reoperation rates and determines factors influencing successful fixation of the GT using current-generation cable plate devices. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 76 patients who underwent surgery requiring fixation of their GT and had at least 1-year radiographic follow-up. Indications for a surgery were periprosthetic fracture (n = 25), revision THA requiring an extended trochanteric osteotomy (n = 30), GT fracture (n = 3), GT fracture nonunion (n = 9), and complex primary THA (n = 3). Primary outcomes were radiographic union and reoperation. Secondary objectives were patient and plate factors influencing radiographic union. Results: At a mean radiographic follow-up of 2.5 years, the union rate was 76.3% with a nonunion rate of 23.7%. Twenty-eight patients underwent plate removal, reasons for removal were pain (n = 21), nonunion (n = 5), and hardware failure (n = 2). Seven patients had cable-induced bone loss. Anatomic positioning of the plate (P = .03) and number of cables used (P = .03) were associated with radiographic union. Nonunion was associated with a higher incidence (+30%) of hardware failure due to broken cable(s) (P = .005). Conclusions: Greater trochanteric nonunion remains a problem in THA. Successful fixation using current-generation cable plate devices may be influenced by plate positioning and number of cables used. Plate removal may be required for pain or cable-induced bone loss.