Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 19;2(3):191–197. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.23.BJO-2020-0205.R1

Table III.

Radiological outcomes between the robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (n = 86) and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (n = 253) groups.

Measure RAUKA, % MUKA, % Difference, % p-value
FCA outlier 1.2 5.1 3.9 0.113
FSA outlier 5.8 14.6 8.8 0.033
TCA outlier 3.5 22.1 18.6 < 0.001
TSA outlier 5.8 13.0 7.2 0.069
FCA far outlier 1.2 7.5 6.3 0.032
FSA far outlier 11.6 35.6 24.0 < 0.001
TCA far outlier 2.3 19.4 17.1 < 0.001
TSA far outlier 2.3 5.5 3.2 0.230
FCA any outlier 2.3 12.6 10.3 0.006
FSA any outlier 17.4 50.2 32.8 < 0.001
TCA any outlier 5.8 41.5 35.7 < 0.001
TSA any outlier 8.1 18.6 10.4 0.023
Anterior fit 0.0 4.7 4.7 0.042
Posterior fit 1.2 13.4 12.2 0.001
Medial fit 1.2 14.2 13.0 0.001
All perfect 68.6 11.9 -56.7 < 0.001

FCA, femoral coronal angle; FSA, femoral sagittal angle; MUKA, manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; RAUKA, robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; TCA, tibial coronal angle; TSA, tibial sagittal angle.