Robot-assisted femoral tunnel localization in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20230809-00058
- VernacularTitle:机器人辅助定位股骨隧道在内侧髌股韧带重建术中的应用
- Author:
Zhaohe ZHANG
1
;
Yushun FANG
;
Yanan LI
;
Shaohua ZHANG
;
Hongfei TAN
;
Qingsong ZHANG
Author Information
1. 武汉市第四医院运动医学科，湖北省运动医学中心，武汉 430030
- Keywords:
Patellar dislocation;
Ligaments, articular;
Surgery, computer-assisted;
Robotics
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2024;26(1):19-25
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy of robot-assisted femoral tunnel localization in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL).Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the 36 patients who had been admitted to Department of Sports Medicine, The Fourth Hospital of Wuhan between January 2019 and January 2022 due to recurrent patellar dislocation. There were 15 males and 21 females; age: 23.5 (18.3, 29.0) years; number of dislocations: 2.5 (2.0, 3.0). They were stratified into 2 cohorts based on utilization of robot-assistance. In the observation group (17 cases), the femoral tunnel localization was robot-assisted in MPFL reconstruction; in the control group (19 cases), the femoral tunnel localization was guided by C-arm fluoroscopy in MPFL reconstruction. The 2 groups were compared in terms of operation time, frequency of guide wire placement, visual analogue scale (VAS) at postoperative 1 d, patellar tilt angle (PTA) and the disparity between actual femoral tunnel insertion and ideal tunnel insertion point (Sch?ttle point) at postoperative 1 to 3 d, and Lysholm knee score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at the last follow-up.Results:There was no significant difference in the preoperative general data between the 2 groups, showing comparability ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up for 12.0 (10.3, 13.0) months. In the observation group, the operation time [(64.1±16.7) min], frequency of guide wire placement [1.0 (1.0, 2.0) times], VAS [2.5 (2.0, 3.0) points], and disparity between actual femoral tunnel insertion and ideal tunnel insertion point [(4.7±1.2) mm] were significantly better than those in the control group [(84.2±19.7) min, 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) times, 3.5 (3.0, 4.0) points, and (6.1±1.2) mm] ( P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in PTA, Lysholm knee score or IKDC score ( P>0.05). Conclusions:The short-term clinical efficacy of robot-assisted femoral tunnel localization is satisfactory in MPFL reconstruction. Compared with the intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy, robot-assisted localization can decrease the frequency of guide wire placement, enhance femoral tunnel accuracy and efficiency, and alleviate more postoperative pain for the patients.
