Background: Several cutting guides including conventional, navigation, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) and robotic are currently used in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the most widely used cutting guides regarding the improvement of radiological, functional outcomes and the rate of complications.
Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UKA cutting guides were searched in electronic databases, major orthopaedics journals, and oral communications in major orthopaedics meetings, until May 1st, 2022. The primary outcomes were the rate of outliers for the tibial and femoral components in the frontal plane, KSS score and the complication rate.
Results: Eighteen RCTs involving 1562 patients with 1564 UKA were included Regarding the prosthetic components' positions, we found a significant increase of the outliers rate using PSI for the femoral component, compared to robotic surgery (risk ratio 0.00 [95% CI 0.00 to 0.55]) and navigated surgery (risk ratio 305.1 [95% CI 1.50 to 1,27e + 07]). We didn't emphasize any difference regarding the tibial component's position, the KSS value at 24 months postoperatively, and the complication rate. Regarding secondary outcomes, robotics provided a better precision in bone cuts in the sagittal plane for the tibial component and the lower limb alignment. No other differences were observed.
Conclusion: In the light of these results, the robot seems to be the most precise cutting instrument to perform UKA. However, this did not demonstrate any difference in functional or clinical outcome. The cost of this technology can be a major economic brake, especially in surgical centers that do not have an exclusive prosthetic activity. Further outcome and survivorship data is needed to recommend one cutting instrument over the other.
Keywords: Cutting guides; Knee prostheses; Network meta-analysis; Robotic; UKA.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.