Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
¿Existen discrepancias entre la planificación preoperatoria y la evaluación intraoperatoria realizada por el cirujano en la artroplastia total de rodilla con asistencia robótica? / Are there discrepancies between preoperative planning and intraoperative evaluation by the surgeon in robotically assisted total knee arthroplasty?
Calvo, Rafael; Edwards, Diego; Cerda, Alvaro; Nuñez, marilaura; Partarrieu, Robert; Figueroa, David.
  • Calvo, Rafael; Clinica Alemana. Santiago. CL
  • Edwards, Diego; Clínica Alemana. Santiago. CL
  • Cerda, Alvaro; Clínica Alemana. Santiago. CL
  • Nuñez, marilaura; Clínica Alemana. Santiago. CL
  • Partarrieu, Robert; Clínica Alemana. Santiago. CL
  • Figueroa, David; Clínica Alemana. Santiago. CL
Artrosc. (B. Aires) ; 30(2): 71-76, 2023.
Article in Spanish | LILACS, BINACIS | ID: biblio-1451223
RESUMEN

Introducción:

Existe poca evidencia respecto de la concordancia entre el plan preoperatorio mediante artroplastia total de rodilla asistida por robot y el plan posterior al balance protésico realizado por el cirujano. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el grado de concordancia entre la planificación preoperatoria de la artroplastia total de rodilla con asistencia robótica semiactiva (Mako) y la planificación efectuada por el traumatólogo durante la cirugía. Materiales y

métodos:

estudio retrospectivo y descriptivo de prótesis primarias instaladas entre octubre de 2018 y junio de 2019 con planificación preoperatoria realizada por el software MAKOplasty®. Se excluyeron las prótesis no colocadas por el sistema robótico o con información clínica incompleta. Esto se comparó con la planificación intraoperatoria del traumatólogo. Variables analizadas alineación coronal y sagital, rotación y tamaño de los componentes e inserto. Los datos se analizaron con el softwareSTATA v.16.0. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo univariante cualitativo, con un intervalo de confianza del 95%.

Resultados:

se incluyeron cincuenta y una rodillas operadas de cuarenta y nueve pacientes, el 69% fueron mujeres. El nivel de concordancia para el componente femoral fue axial 86.3% (IC = 73.7 - 94.2), coronal 88.2% (IC = 76.1 - 95.5), sagital 88.2% (IC = 76.1 - 95.5). Componente tibial axial 98% (IC = 89.5 ­ 99.9), coronal 96.1% (IC = 86.5 ­ 99.5), sagital 96.1% (IC = 86.5 ­ 99.5). Tamaño del componente fémur 94.1% (IC = 83.7 ­ 98.7), tibia 84.3% (IC = 71.4 ­ 92.9), inserto 27.4% (IC = 15.8 ­ 41.7).

Conclusión:

la planificación preoperatoria mediante el uso de la asistencia robótica semiactiva de Mako presenta un buen nivel de concordancia con la planificada intraoperatoriamente, a excepción del tamaño del inserto. El traumatólogo es determinante en la modificación del plan preoperatorio. Nivel de Evidencia III
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

There is little evidence regarding the concordance between the preoperative plan using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty and that after the prosthetic balance by the surgeon. Our aim is to evaluate the level of agreement between the preoperative planning of total knee arthroplasty with semiactive robotic assistance (Mako) and the planning made by the orthopedic surgeon during the surgery. Materials and

methods:

descriptive study of prostheses installed between October 2018 and June 2019 with preoperative planning performed by the MAKOplasty® software. This was compared with intraoperative planning by the Orthopedic Surgeon. Variables analyzed coronal and sagittal alignment, rotation and size of the components and insert. The data was analyzed with the STATA v.16.0 software. A qualitative univariate descriptive analysis was performed, with a 95% confidence interval.

Results:

fifty-one operated knees from forty-nine patients were included, 69% were women. The level of agreement was Femoral component axial 86.3% [CI = 73.7 - 94.2], coronal 88.2% [CI = 76.1 - 95.5], sagittal 88.2% [CI = 76.1 - 95.5]. Tibial component axial 98% [CI = 89.5 - 99.9], coronal 96.1% [CI = 86.5 - 99.5], sagittal 96.1% [CI = 86.5 - 99.5]. Component size femur 94.1% [CI = 83.7 - 98.7], tibia 84.3% [CI = 71.4 - 92.9], insert 27.4% [CI = 15.8 - 41.7].

Conclusion:

preoperative planning through the use of Mako semiactive robotic assistance presents a good level of agreement with that planned intraoperatively, with the exception of the insert size. The orthopedic surgeon is decisive in modifying the preoperative plan. Level of Evidence III
Subject(s)
Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Preoperative Period / Intraoperative Period / Knee Joint Type of study: Observational study / Qualitative research Language: Spanish Journal: Artrosc. (B. Aires) Journal subject: Orthopedics Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: Chile Institution/Affiliation country: Clinica Alemana/CL / Clínica Alemana/CL

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Preoperative Period / Intraoperative Period / Knee Joint Type of study: Observational study / Qualitative research Language: Spanish Journal: Artrosc. (B. Aires) Journal subject: Orthopedics Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: Chile Institution/Affiliation country: Clinica Alemana/CL / Clínica Alemana/CL