Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of accuracy in robotic-assisted UKA

From: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review

Studies System Level of evidence Main findings
Kwon et al. [62] 2019 Mako III During passive flexion, the mean values both before and after insertion of the implant were lower in goniometer group than in robot group.
Batailler et al. [40] 2019 Navio III rUKA has a lower rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers both in lateral and medial UKA, compared to conventional technique.
Iñiguez et al. [63] 2019 Navio IV MDFA and MPTA were significant difference with median of 1.07° vs. 0.12° and 1.28° vs. 1.3° respectively
Deese et al. [12] 2018 Mako III Robotic-arm assisted surgery is reported to improve the accuracy of implant placement.
Motesharei et al. [50] 2018 Mako II rUKA achieved a higher knee excursion (18.0° ± 4.9°) compared to the manual group (15.7° ± 4.1°), leading to not only better implant alignment but also some kinematic benefits to the user during walk.
Khare et al. [64] 2018 Navio IV rUKA system offers significant improvement in the femoral and tibial implant placement compared with conventional UKA system.
kayani et al. [49] 2018 Mako III rUKA improved accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning.
Gaudiani et al. [39] 2017 Mako III Posterior tibial slope was lower after rUKA compared to the native knee (4.91° vs. 2.28°, p < 0.0001).
Herry et al. [40] 2017 Navio III Restitution of joint-line height was improved with robotic-assisted group compared to the control group.
MacCallum et al. [46] 2016 Mako III Tibial coronal positioning was more accurate with robotic-arm-assisted (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0.0001).
Bell et al. [38] 2016 Mako II MAKO-assisted UKA lead to improved accuracy of femoral and tibial component positioning, except for tibial coronal position.
Lonner et al. [36] 2015 Navio IV The image-free robotic devices achieved accurate implementation of the surgical plan with small errors in implant placement.
Mofidi et al. [31] 2014 Mako III Robotic-assisted medial UKA results in an average difference of 2.2° ± 1.7° to 3.6° ± 3.3°, inaccuracy may be attributed to suboptimal cementing technique.
Citak et al. [65] 2013 Mako IV UKA was more precise using a semi-active robotic system with dynamic bone tracking technology compared to the manual technique.
Plate et al. [44] 2013 Mako III rUKA allows ligament balancing with an accuracy of up to 0.53 mm, being 1 mm in 83% of cases.
Smith et al. [31] 2013 Navio IV The freehand sculpting tool was shown to produce accurate implant placement with small errors which are comparable to those reported by other robotic assistive devices on the market for UKA.
Karia et al. [66] 2013 Mako IV Robotic assistance enabled surgeons to achieve better precision and accuracy when positioning UKA components irrespective of their experience.
Becker et al. [67] 2012 KUKA IV The natural knee stability in antero-posterior translation and rotation can be preserved in rUKA.
Dunbar et al. [68] 2012 Mako III Implant placement errors were comparable between tactile robotics and rigid stereotactic fixation.
Pearle et al. [69] 2010 Mako III Haptic guidance in combination with a navigation module allows the planned and intraoperative tibio-femoral angle was within 1° and postoperative long leg axis radiographs were within 1.6° in UKA.
Lonner et al. [37] 2010 Mako III Tibial component alignment is more accurate and less variable using robotic arm assistance than manual instrumentation.
Cobb et al. [6] 2006 Acrobot II All the Acrobot cases have limb alignment in the coronal plane within 2° of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy.
Rodriguez et al. [70] 2005 Acrobot II All of robotic cases were implanted with tibio-femoral alignment on the coronal plane within ±2° of the planned position.