Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties?
Abstract Background Optical array placement for robotic-assisted knee replacement introduces the rare, but real risk of periprosthetic fracture. The purpose of this retrospective study was to review the incidence of fracture with the conventional technique of bicortical diaphyseal pin placement. We...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2021-07-01
|
| Series: | Arthroplasty |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-021-00082-8 |
| _version_ | 1818450403544530944 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrew G. Yun Marilena Qutami Kory B. Dylan Pasko |
| author_facet | Andrew G. Yun Marilena Qutami Kory B. Dylan Pasko |
| author_sort | Andrew G. Yun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Optical array placement for robotic-assisted knee replacement introduces the rare, but real risk of periprosthetic fracture. The purpose of this retrospective study was to review the incidence of fracture with the conventional technique of bicortical diaphyseal pin placement. We also evaluated a modified method of unicortical periarticular pin placement to mitigate this risk. Methods We reviewed 2603 knee arthroplasties that were performed between June 2017 and December 2019. The conventional bicortical diaphyseal technique was used in 1571 knees (bicortical diaphyseal group) and the unicortical periarticular technique was used in 1032 knees (unicortical periarticular group). Results A more than 1-year follow-up revealed that 3 femoral shaft fractures (0.19%) occurred in the bicortical diaphyseal group and no fracture took place in the unicortical periarticular group. There was no array loosening in either group. Conclusions The modified unicortical periarticular pin placement is a reliable technique for computer-navigated and robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties. It may be associated with a lower incidence of postoperative femoral shaft fractures, compared to conventional bicortical diaphyseal pinning. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T20:50:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8890a98041704440a3bbfacac4d6e03f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2524-7948 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T20:50:45Z |
| publishDate | 2021-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Arthroplasty |
| spelling | doaj.art-8890a98041704440a3bbfacac4d6e03f2022-12-21T22:47:48ZengBMCArthroplasty2524-79482021-07-01311710.1186/s42836-021-00082-8Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties?Andrew G. Yun0Marilena Qutami1Kory B. Dylan Pasko2Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Hip and Knee Replacement, Providence Saint John’s Health CenterOrthopedic Surgery, Center for Hip and Knee Replacement, Providence Saint John’s Health CenterOrthopedic Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University HospitalAbstract Background Optical array placement for robotic-assisted knee replacement introduces the rare, but real risk of periprosthetic fracture. The purpose of this retrospective study was to review the incidence of fracture with the conventional technique of bicortical diaphyseal pin placement. We also evaluated a modified method of unicortical periarticular pin placement to mitigate this risk. Methods We reviewed 2603 knee arthroplasties that were performed between June 2017 and December 2019. The conventional bicortical diaphyseal technique was used in 1571 knees (bicortical diaphyseal group) and the unicortical periarticular technique was used in 1032 knees (unicortical periarticular group). Results A more than 1-year follow-up revealed that 3 femoral shaft fractures (0.19%) occurred in the bicortical diaphyseal group and no fracture took place in the unicortical periarticular group. There was no array loosening in either group. Conclusions The modified unicortical periarticular pin placement is a reliable technique for computer-navigated and robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties. It may be associated with a lower incidence of postoperative femoral shaft fractures, compared to conventional bicortical diaphyseal pinning.https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-021-00082-8Knee arthroplastyShaft fractureComplicationPin siteRobotic-assisted arm |
| spellingShingle | Andrew G. Yun Marilena Qutami Kory B. Dylan Pasko Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? Arthroplasty Knee arthroplasty Shaft fracture Complication Pin site Robotic-assisted arm |
| title | Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? |
| title_full | Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? |
| title_fullStr | Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? |
| title_short | Do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasties? |
| title_sort | do bicortical diaphyseal array pins create the risk of periprosthetic fracture in robotic assisted knee arthroplasties |
| topic | Knee arthroplasty Shaft fracture Complication Pin site Robotic-assisted arm |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-021-00082-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrewgyun dobicorticaldiaphysealarraypinscreatetheriskofperiprostheticfractureinroboticassistedkneearthroplasties AT marilenaqutami dobicorticaldiaphysealarraypinscreatetheriskofperiprostheticfractureinroboticassistedkneearthroplasties AT korybdylanpasko dobicorticaldiaphysealarraypinscreatetheriskofperiprostheticfractureinroboticassistedkneearthroplasties |