Giacomo Pacchiarotti

Dr. Giacomo Pacchiarotti


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

3Years (2024-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GAGeorge Avram
George Avram
HTHoria Tomescu
Horia Tomescu
DCDennis Cicio
Dennis Cicio
VRVlad Rusu
Vlad Rusu
NMNatalie Mengis
Natalie Mengis
OROctav Marius Russu
Octav Marius Russu
Background: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty (rUKA) is gradually gaining more popularity than its conventional counterpart (cUKA). Current studies are highly heterogenic in terms of methodology and the reported results; therefore, establishing the optimal recommendation for patients becomes less straightforward. For this reason, this meta-analysis aims to provide an up-to-date evidence-based analysis on current evidence regarding clinical outcomes and complication rates following rUKA and cUKA. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched, PubMed via MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. The relevant inclusion criteria were as follows: comparative clinical studies in which medial rUKA was compared to medial cUKA (prospective or retrospective designs), (2) human studies, (3) meta-analyses for cross-referencing, and (4) English language. The relevant extracted data were patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion, and complications. A random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The results include mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Results: rUKA showed a higher overall FJS-12 score compared to cUKA, with MD = 6.02 (95%CI: −0.07 to 12.1), p = 0.05. At 6 months postoperatively, the MD increased to 10.31 (95%CI: 5.14 to 15.49), p < 0.01. At a minimum 36-month follow-up, cUKA had a higher all-cause revision rate, with OR = 3.31 (95%CI: 1.25 to 8.8), p = 0.02, and at a minimum 60-month follow-up, a higher aseptic loosening rate, with OR = 3.86 (95%CI: 1.51 to 9.91), p < 0.01, compared to rUKA. Conclusions: rUKA provides better FJS-12 results compared to cUKA, as well as lower all-cause revision and aseptic loosening rates at 36- and 60-month follow-up, respectively. However, long-term follow-up is still pending.

7 March 2025 in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
GPGiacomo Pacchiarotti
Giacomo Pacchiarotti
ATAlessandro Todesca
Alessandro Todesca
GAGeorge Mihai Avram
George Mihai Avram
GLGiovanni Longo
Giovanni Longo
DPDomenico Paolicelli
Domenico Paolicelli
SGStefano Gumina
Stefano Gumina
Purpose: Fixed flexion deformity (FFD) is traditionally addressed in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with extensive soft tissue release and distal femoral recut, which increases bone stock consumption and raises the knee joint line (JL). This study aimed to evaluate differences in the anatomical restoration of the JL and bone stock preservation between FFD knees and a control group during robotic‐assisted (RA) TKA combined with functional alignment (FA).Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study examined 120 knees undergoing RA TKA. The knees were categorised into two groups: the study group, with FFD > 5°, and the control group, without FFD. Further analysis stratified the study group based on the severity of the deformity: mild (5–9°), intermediate (10–14°) and advanced (>15°). The Mann–Whitney U test was utilised to investigate the differences between the control and study groups.Results: The study group comprised 64 knees, presenting an average flexion contracture and range of motion (ROM) of 11.3 ± 4.7° and 112.7 ± 11.6°, respectively. The control group comprised 56 knees, with an extension deficit and ROM of 1.6 ± 2.1° and 123.5 ± 8.3°, respectively. The JL was proximally displaced on average by 0.1 ± 1.2 mm in the study group and lowered by 0.7 ± 0.9 mm in the control group. Analysis of JL in the subgroups showed a lowering of 0.3 ± 1.2 mm in the mild deformity subgroup and a rise of 0.08 ± 1.3 mm and 0.8 ± 0.8 mm in the intermediate and advanced FFD subgroups, respectively, showing no statistical significance. The combined thickness of tibial proximal and femoral distal bone cuts measured 12.3 ± 1.6 mm in the study group and 11.4 ± 1.4 mm in the control group.Conclusions: FA in RA‐assisted TKA can correct FFD, minimising bone cuts while preserving anatomical JL level.Level of Evidence: Level III.

31 May 2024 in International Orthopaedics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GPGiacomo Pacchiarotti
Giacomo Pacchiarotti
ATAlessandro Todesca
Alessandro Todesca
MCMichele Coppola
Michele Coppola
SGStefano Gumina
Stefano Gumina
Purpose: Robotic adoption in knee surgery has yielded several benefits, but its application in patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) remains barely reported. The purpose of this study was to determine implant survival, patient satisfaction, and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted PFA at an intermediate follow-up. Methods: This prospective analysis targeted 18 knees of 16 consecutive patients who underwent robot-aided PFA with three-year minimum follow-up (range, 3 to 6 years). Each patient was evaluated collecting pre-operative and post-operative medical record data, including range of motion, radiographic images, and multiple scores, such as VAS, APKS, and OKS. Results: At surgery, the mean age was 55.4 years ± 14.4 (range, 32 to 78 years), and the mean BMI was 26.8 kg/m² ±5.2 (range, 20 to 36). Etiologies of patellofemoral osteoarthritis included idiopathic degeneration (28%), post-traumatic (33%), and dysplasia (39%). Pre-implantation scores were VAS 7.9 ± 1.4, AKPS 34.6 ± 23.3, and OKS 17.3 ± 10.3. One implant was revised with primary total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis progression. Clinical and radiographic follow-up showed no signs of loosening or infection. The maximum flexion reached an average of 131.1°±10.5° (range, 110° to 145°), accompanied by significantly improved score results (P-value < 0.01): VAS 1.1 ± 1.4, AKPS 90.2 ± 8.6, and OKS 46.3 ± 1.8. Conclusions: At 3 years after robotic assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty, excellent implant survival and patient satisfaction rates can be expected along with significantly improved functional and pain control outcomes. Although the limitations imposed by the restricted cohort, these findings indicate that robotic assistance in PFA is both safe and effective at intermediate follow-up.

25 August 2025 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HTHoria Tomescu
Horia Tomescu
GAGeorge Avram
George Avram
GPGiacomo Pacchiarotti
Giacomo Pacchiarotti
RERanda Elsheikh
Randa Elsheikh
OROctav Marius Russu
Octav Marius Russu
VPVlad Predescu
Vlad Predescu
Background: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) enhances the precision of component alignment compared to conventional techniques. Although various robotic systems exist, direct comparisons assessing their relative clinical performance remain limited. The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison between image-based and imageless robotic UKA. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched: PubMed (via MEDLINE), Epistemonikos, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies comparing rUKA and cUKA with radiologic parameters and revision rates (prospective or retrospective), (2) human subjects, (3) meta-analyses for cross-referencing, and (4) English language. Data collected included (1) pre- and postoperative radiologic parameters, (2) radiologic outliers, and (3) revisions and their causes. A random-effects meta-analysis was employed to enable a generalizable comparison. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables, and log odds ratios (LORs) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. Results: Image-based robotic UKA was associated with fewer joint line height outliers (LOR = 3.5, 95% CI: 0.69–6.30, p = 0.015) using a 2° threshold. HKA outliers (thresholds 2–3°) were also reduced (LOR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.09–1.19, p = 0.024). Posterior tibial and posterior femoral implant fit were significantly lower with image-based systems (LOR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.37–2.03, respectively, LOR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.29–1.91; p < 0.001 for both). No significant differences in revision rates were observed. Conclusions: Image-based robotic systems may result in fewer outliers in key radiologic parameters, including hip–knee angle, joint-line height, posterior tibial, and posterior femoral fit, though reporting remains highly heterogeneous.