Scholarlink

<p>Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has emerged as an advanced technology for improving surgical precision and early clinical outcomes. Although several studies have reported favorable outcomes, direct comparisons between a NAVIO-assisted UKA and conventional UKA (C-UKA) remain limited. This research aimed to evaluate differences in radiological alignment, clinical outcomes, perioperative data, and safety between NAVIO-UKA and C-UKA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus , as well as primary Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (CSTD), until January 2026 to find relevant comparative studies. Statistical analysis was conducted using software STATA MP (V18. 0). There was no significant difference in postoperative Hip–Knee–Ankle (HKA) angle alignment between NAVIO-assisted and conventional UKA (P = 0.94). The group assisted by NAVIO had a higher posterior tibial slope (PTS) and fewer PTS outliers (P &lt; 0.001). The NAVIO-assisted UKA showed a significant association with Visual Analog Scale pain score (P = 0.01) and higher Knee Society Score functional scores (P &lt; 0.001), International Knee Society knee scores (P = 0.01), and Forgotten Joint score (P = 0.04), with no significant difference in IKS function scores (P = 0.32). It took a longer time during operation for the NAVIO-assisted group (P &lt; 0.001). No differences were observed between these groups in hospitalisation days or postoperative range of motion. There were lower overall complication and revision rates in the NAVIO-assisted group, though patient satisfaction rates were similar between groups. According to the limited available literature, NAVIO-assisted UKA is associated with more reliable tibial component implantation, promising early clinical results and a lower incidence of complications and revisions in the short term, at the expense of longer operative time. However, given the limited follow-up and low event numbers, these safety outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Additional high-quality randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up are necessary to validate the possible benefits of NAVIO-assisted UKA.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Early clinical, radiological, and safety outcomes of NAVIO-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月14日

查看全文
  • Changjiao Sun,
  • Xijiu Zhao,
  • Qi Ma,
  • Xiaofei Zhang,
  • Fei Song,
  • Xu Cai

摘要

Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has emerged as an advanced technology for improving surgical precision and early clinical outcomes. Although several studies have reported favorable outcomes, direct comparisons between a NAVIO-assisted UKA and conventional UKA (C-UKA) remain limited. This research aimed to evaluate differences in radiological alignment, clinical outcomes, perioperative data, and safety between NAVIO-UKA and C-UKA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus , as well as primary Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (CSTD), until January 2026 to find relevant comparative studies. Statistical analysis was conducted using software STATA MP (V18. 0). There was no significant difference in postoperative Hip–Knee–Ankle (HKA) angle alignment between NAVIO-assisted and conventional UKA (P = 0.94). The group assisted by NAVIO had a higher posterior tibial slope (PTS) and fewer PTS outliers (P < 0.001). The NAVIO-assisted UKA showed a significant association with Visual Analog Scale pain score (P = 0.01) and higher Knee Society Score functional scores (P < 0.001), International Knee Society knee scores (P = 0.01), and Forgotten Joint score (P = 0.04), with no significant difference in IKS function scores (P = 0.32). It took a longer time during operation for the NAVIO-assisted group (P < 0.001). No differences were observed between these groups in hospitalisation days or postoperative range of motion. There were lower overall complication and revision rates in the NAVIO-assisted group, though patient satisfaction rates were similar between groups. According to the limited available literature, NAVIO-assisted UKA is associated with more reliable tibial component implantation, promising early clinical results and a lower incidence of complications and revisions in the short term, at the expense of longer operative time. However, given the limited follow-up and low event numbers, these safety outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Additional high-quality randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up are necessary to validate the possible benefits of NAVIO-assisted UKA.