[New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro]

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the available literature and critically appraise current evidence on the functional and radiographic outcomes as well as reoperation and revision rates of custom partial knee arthroplasty, i.e., unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA), and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and a protocol was registered with Prospero. On 25 May 2021, two authors independently searched and screened Level I-IV studies that reported on outcomes of custom partial knee arthroplasty using the databases of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were synthesised and tabulated, and quality assessments were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were eligible for data extraction, of which two comparative and four case series were on custom UKA (follow-up, 0-9 months), one comparative and five case series on custom BKA (follow-up, 0.25-72 months), and three case series on custom PFA (follow-up, 2-119 months). Three studies on custom UKA reported mean Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee of 86-94 and mean KSS Function of 94-95, and two studies on custom BKA reported mean KSS Knee of 90-94 and KSS function of 81, whereas one study on custom PFA reported KSS Knee of 91 and KSS Function of 89. Custom implants tended to have less bone-implant mismatch compared to off the shelf (OTS) implants. Revision rates were 3-25% for custom UKA (at 0-109 months), 3-5% for custom BKA (at 12-72 months), and 0-14% for custom PFA (at 2-119 months).

CONCLUSION

Due to the small number of comparative studies and lack of consistency in reported outcomes, it remains difficult to ascertain the benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, compared to OTS implants, custom implants result in less bone-implant mismatch and that 78-91% of patients are either satisfied or very satisfied after custom partial knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Status and future of modern technologies in arthroplasty : Results of a survey of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU)

BACKGROUND

The orthopedic community is divided on the question of whether modern technologies in arthroplasty improve outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this initiative of the working group on intraoperative imaging and technology integration (Arbeitsgemeinschaft intraoperative Bildgebung und Technologieintegration, AGiTEC) is to initiate the collection of additional data for the scientific evaluation of modern technologies.

QUESTION

To what extent are modern technologies currently used and which implementations are planned? Do the members of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) consider the acquisition of additional data for scientific assessment necessary?

METHODS

Members of the DGOU were asked via an e‑mail survey about the distribution and projected introduction of modern technologies in arthroplasty. They were also asked whether sufficient data were collected for scientific evaluation and whether acquisition of additional data in studies or arthroplasty registries were considered necessary.

RESULTS

Of the 7923 probands surveyed, 428 completed the questionnaire in full (5.4%). It was found that individual implants and navigation are currently the most frequently used (31% and 29%, respectively). The largest increases in the next 2 years are projected for virtual reality and robotics (+30% and +23%, respectively), 85% of respondents indicated that insufficient data were collected for scientific evaluation, and 89% each requested initiation of multicenter studies and inclusion of technologies in the arthroplasty registry.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study should motivate the scientific community, industry, and those responsible for the arthroplasty registries to collect and analyze data for the scientific assessment of modern technologies.