Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2024; 37(01): 014-019
DOI: 10.1055/a-2179-8536
Special Focus Section

Increased Femoral Component Flexion and No Difference in Slope in Robotic- versus Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty When Targeting Mechanical Alignment

Antonio Klasan 
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AUVA UKH Steiermark, Graz, Austria
2   Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria
,
Victoria Anelli-Monti
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AUVA UKH Steiermark, Graz, Austria
,
Thomas Neri 
3   CHU St. Etienne, France
,
Sven Edward Putnis
4   NHS Trust Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
,
Maximillian Zacherl
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AUVA UKH Steiermark, Graz, Austria
,
Christian Kammerlander
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AUVA UKH Steiermark, Graz, Austria
,
Patrick Sadoghi
5   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming popular due to better precision, when compared with other instrumentation. Although RAS has been validated in comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS), data from clinical settings comparing these two techniques are lacking. This is especially the case for sagittal alignment. Whereas pure mechanical alignment (MA) aims for 0 to 3 degrees of flexion of the femoral component and 3° of posterior slope for the tibial component, adjusted MA (aMA) mostly used with RAS allows for flexing of the femoral component for downsizing and increase of slope for an increase of the flexion gap. In the present study, we compared sagittal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and CAS targeting MA, which has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Femoral component flexion and tibial slope were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CAS and 72 RAS, we found no difference in tibial slope (p = 0.661), 1° median femoral component flexion (p = 0.023), and no difference in outliers (femur, p = 0.276, tibia, p = 0.289). RAS slightly increases femoral component flexion, but has no influence on tibial slope, when compared with CAS in TKA. If MA is the target, RAS provides no benefit over CAS for achieving the targeted sagittal alignment.

Level of Evidence Level III retrospective study.

Keywords

arthroplasty - robotic - RAS


Publication History

Received: 13 July 2023

Accepted: 20 September 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 September 2023

Article published online:
12 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Price AJ, Alvand A, Troelsen A. et al. Knee replacement. Lancet 2018; 392 (10158): 1672-1682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Lustig S, Graichen H. et al. A safe transition to a more personalized alignment in total knee arthroplasty: the importance of a “safe zone” concept. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30 (02) 365-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Oussedik S, Abdel MP, Victor J, Pagnano MW, Haddad FS. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (03) 276-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dobbelaere A, Müller JH, Aït-Si-Selmi T, Gousopoulos L, Saffarini M, Bonnin MP. Sagittal femoral condylar shape varies along a continuum from spherical to ovoid: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2023; 143 (06) 3347-3361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Weiler A, Berndt R, Wagner M, Scheffler S, Schatka I, Gwinner C. Tibial slope on conventional lateral radiographs in anterior cruciate ligament-injured and intact knees: mean value and outliers. Am J Sports Med 2023; 51 (09) 2285-2290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nedopil AJ, Howell SM, Hull ML. What mechanisms are associated with tibial component failure after kinematically-aligned total knee arthroplasty?. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (08) 1561-1569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Brar AS, Howell SM, Hull ML, Mahfouz MR. Does kinematic alignment and flexion of a femoral component designed for mechanical alignment reduce the proximal and lateral reach of the trochlea?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1808-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nedopil AJ, Howell SM, Hull ML. What clinical characteristics and radiographic parameters are associated with patellofemoral instability after kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty?. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (02) 283-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rhee SJ, Kim HJ, Lee CR, Kim CW, Gwak HC, Kim JH. A comparison of long-term outcomes of computer-navigated and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (20) 1875-1885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mahoney O, Kinsey T, Sodhi N. et al. Improved component placement accuracy with robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2022; 35 (03) 337-344
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Parratte S, Price AJ, Jeys LM, Jackson WF, Clarke HD. Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (11) 2799-2803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schopper C, Proier P, Luger M, Gotterbarm T, Klasan A. The learning curve in robotic assisted knee arthroplasty is flattened by the presence of a surgeon experienced with robotic assisted surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (03) 760-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yau WP, Leung A, Liu KG, Yan CH, Wong LLS, Chiu KY. Interobserver and intra-observer errors in obtaining visually selected anatomical landmarks during registration process in non-image-based navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (08) 1150-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Klasan A, Putnis SE, Grasso S, Neri T, Coolican MR. Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140 (06) 801-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Roche M. The MAKO robotic-arm knee arthroplasty system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (12) 2043-2047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Itou J, Itoh M, Kuwashima U, Okazaki K. Lateral joint tightness in flexion following cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty decreases patient-reported outcome measures and postoperative range of motion. J ISAKOS 2023; 8 (05) 332-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pourzal R, Cip J, Rad E. et al. Joint line elevation and tibial slope are associated with increased polyethylene wear in cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. J Orthop Res 2020; 38 (07) 1596-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Klasan A, de Steiger R, Holland S, Hatton A, Vertullo CJ, Young SW. Similar risk of revision after kinematically aligned, patient-specific instrumented total knee arthroplasty, and all other total knee arthroplasty: combined results from the Australian and New Zealand joint replacement registries. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (10) 2872-2877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Young SW, Sullivan NPT, Walker ML, Holland S, Bayan A, Farrington B. No difference in 5-year clinical or radiographic outcomes between kinematic and mechanical alignment in TKA: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478 (06) 1271-1279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chalmers BP, Quevedo-Gonzalez F, Gausden EB, Jerabek SA, Haas SB, Ast MP. Posterior tibial slope in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: the transmalleolar sagittal axis underestimates slope compared to traditional intramedullary axis. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (6S): S207-S210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fokin AA, Heekin RD. Anterior referencing versus posterior referencing in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2014; 27 (04) 303-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marra MA, Strzelczak M, Heesterbeek PJC. et al. Flexing and downsizing the femoral component is not detrimental to patellofemoral biomechanics in posterior-referencing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (11) 3377-3385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Matziolis G, Hube R, Perka C, Matziolis D. Increased flexion position of the femoral component reduces the flexion gap in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (06) 1092-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar