Efficacy of robot-assisted arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
10.3760/cma.j.cn501098-20210913-00489
- VernacularTitle:机器人辅助关节镜下重建前交叉韧带的疗效
- Author:
Li ZHANG
1
;
Qiuzhen LIANG
;
Zandong ZHAO
;
Xin KANG
;
Bin TIAN
;
Bo REN
;
Xian ZHANG
;
Buhuai DONG
;
Jiang ZHENG
;
Liang ZHANG
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学附属红会医院运动医学中心，西安 710054
- Keywords:
Anterior cruciate ligament;
Robotics;
Surgery, computer-assisted;
Soft tissue injuries
- From:
Chinese Journal of Trauma
2022;38(2):142-148
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted and simple arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 37 patients with ACL tear admitted to Honghui Hospital of Xi′an Jiaotong University from January 2020 to September 2020. There were 24 males and 13 females, aged 16-45 years［(30.7±9.8)years］. A total of 17 patients were treated by robot-assisted ACL reconstruction (robot-assisted group), and 20 patients by simple arthroscopic ACL reconstruction (simple arthroscopy group). The operation time, number of guide wire drilling, positional accuracy of bone tunnel (distance between the central point of bone tunnel and ideal anatomical point) and perioperative complications were compared between the two groups. Knee stability was evaluated by Lachman test and KT-2000 measurement, and knee function by Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and range of motion of joint flexion and extension before operation, at 4 months after operation and at the last follow-up.Results:All patients were followed up for 12-18 months［(13.1±4.1)months］. The operation time in robot-assisted group was (83.8±11.3)minutes, significantly longer than (50.4±9.1)minutes in simple arthroscopy group ( P<0.01). The number of guide wire drilling in robot-assisted group was (2.2±0.5)times, less than (2.5±0.4)times in simple arthroscopy group ( P<0.05). The distance between the central point of bone tunnel and ideal anatomical point was (1.3±0.3)mm in robot-assisted group, not significantly different from (1.4±0.3)mm in simple arthroscopy group ( P>0.05). There were no perioperative complications in both groups. The two groups showed no significant differences in Lachman test, KT-2000 measurement, Lysholm score, IKDC score and range of motion of joint flexion and extension before operation, at 4 months after operation and at the last follow-up (all P>0.05). The above indices in both groups were significantly improved at 4 months after operation and at the last follow-up as compared with those before operation (all P<0.01), and both groups showed no significant difference in the above indexes at 4 months after operation and at the last follow-up as compared with those before operation (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with simple arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, robot-assisted ACL reconstruction can prepare a bone tunnel once with good location and direction in one time and achieve similar results in stability and functional recovery of the joint except for slightly longer operation time.
