Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(02): 159-166
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731349
Original Article

Results of Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty at 2-Year Follow-up

Kevin B. Marchand
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health Orthopedics at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Rachel Moody
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, South County Orthopaedics, Orthopaedics Rhode Island, Wakefield, Rhode Island
,
Laura Y. Scholl
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey
,
Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey
,
Kelly B. Taylor
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, South County Orthopaedics, Orthopaedics Rhode Island, Wakefield, Rhode Island
,
Michael A. Mont
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health Orthopedics at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Robert C. Marchand
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, South County Orthopaedics, Orthopaedics Rhode Island, Wakefield, Rhode Island
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Stryker.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted technology has been developed to optimize the consistency and accuracy of bony cuts, implant placements, and knee alignments for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With recently developed designs, there is a need for the reporting longer than initial patient outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare manual and robotic-assisted TKA at 2-year minimum for: (1) aseptic survivorship; (2) reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (r-WOMAC) pain, physical function, and total scores; (3) surgical and medical complications; and (4) radiographic assessments for progressive radiolucencies. We compared 80 consecutive cementless robotic-assisted to 80 consecutive cementless manual TKAs. Patient preoperative r-WOMAC and demographics (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) were not found to be statistically different. Surgical data and medical records were reviewed for aseptic survivorship, medical, and surgical complications. Patients were administered an r-WOMAC survey preoperatively and at 2-year postoperatively. Mean r-WOMAC pain, physical function, and total scores were tabulated and compared using Student's t-tests. Radiographs were reviewed serially throughout patient's postoperative follow-up. A p < 0.05 was considered significant. The aseptic failure rates were 1.25 and 5.0% for the robotic-assisted and manual cohorts, respectively. Patients in the robotic-assisted cohort had significantly improved 2-year postoperative r-WOMAC mean pain (1 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 3 points, p = 0.02), mean physical function (2 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 5 points, p = 0.009), and mean total scores (4 ± 5 vs, 6 ± 7 points, p = 0.009) compared with the manual TKA. Surgical and medical complications were similar in the two cohorts. Only one patient in the manual cohort had progressive radiolucencies on radiographic assessment. Robotic-assisted TKA patients demonstrated improved 2-year postoperative outcomes when compared with manual patients. Further studies could include multiple surgeons and centers to increase the generalizability of these results. The results of this study indicate that patients who undergo robotic-assisted TKA may have improved 2-year postoperative outcomes.

Keywords

robotic-assisted TKA - manual TKA - WOMAC


Publication History

Received: 07 April 2021

Accepted: 01 May 2021

Article published online:
29 June 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Caracciolo B, Giaquinto S. Determinants of the subjective functional outcome of total joint arthroplasty. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2005; 41 (02) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bachmeier CJM, March LM, Cross MJ. et al; Arthritis Cost and Outcome Project Group. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001; 9 (02) 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Collins M, Lavigne M, Girard J, Vendittoli P-A. Joint perception after hip or knee replacement surgery. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (03) 275-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L. et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42 (08) 1722-1728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hofmann S, Seitlinger G, Djahani O, Pietsch M. The painful knee after TKA: a diagnostic algorithm for failure analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (09) 1442-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kim KT, Lee S, Ko DO, Seo BS, Jung WS, Chang BK. Causes of failure after total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients 55 years of age or younger. Knee Surg Relat Res 2014; 26 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mandalia V, Eyres K, Schranz P, Toms AD. Evaluation of patients with a painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (03) 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Toms AD, Mandalia V, Haigh R, Hopwood B. The management of patients with painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (02) 143-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moon YW, Ha CW, Do KH. et al. Comparison of robot-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a controlled cadaver study using multiparameter quantitative three-dimensional CT assessment of alignment. Comput Aided Surg 2012; 17 (02) 86-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim S-M, Park Y-S, Ha C-W, Lim S-J, Moon Y-W. Robot-assisted implantation improves the precision of component position in minimally invasive TKA. Orthopedics 2012; 35 (09) e1334-e1339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY. et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (03) 239-250
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Naziri Q, Cusson BC, Chaudhri M, Shah NV, Sastry A. Making the transition from traditional to robotic-arm assisted TKA: what to expect? A single-surgeon comparative-analysis of the first-40 consecutive cases. J Orthop 2019; 16 (04) 364-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Hampp EL. et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 441-446
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Liow MHL, Chin PL, Tay KJD, Chia SL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Early experiences with robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using the DigiMatch ROBODOC surgical system. Singapore Med J 2014; 55 (10) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Liow MHL, Goh GSH, Wong MK, Chin PL, Tay DKJ, Yeo SJ. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: a 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (09) 2942-2951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (07) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Malkani AL, Roche MW, Kolisek FR. et al. New technology for total knee arthroplasty provides excellent patient-reported outcomes: a minimum two-year analysis. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 276-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. et al. Patient satisfaction outcomes after robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a Short-Term evaluation. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (09) 849-853
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Anis HK. et al. One-year patient outcomes for robotic-arm-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (11) 1063-1068
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15 (12) 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Whitehouse SL, Lingard EA, Katz JN, Learmonth ID. Development and testing of a reduced WOMAC function scale. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (05) 706-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bellamy N, Wilson C, Hendrikz J. et al; EDC Study Group. Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (02) 182-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Meneghini RM, Mont MA, Backstein DB, Bourne RB, Dennis DA, Scuderi GR. Development of a modern Knee Society radiographic evaluation system and methodology for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2311-2314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mont MA, Kinsey T, Zhang J. et al. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrates greater component placement accuracy compared to manual instrumentation: initial results of a prospective multi-center evaluation. International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty 2019;102-B(01):
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sultan AA, Piuzzi N, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Sodhi N, Mont MA. Utilization of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty for soft tissue protection. Expert Rev Med Devices 2017; 14 (12) 925-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (08) 2496-2501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hampp E, Scholl L, Faizan A, Westrich G, Mont MA. Greater Iatrogenic Soft Tissue Damage In Conventional Approach When Compared With The Robotic-Arm Assisted Approach For Total Knee Arthroplasty. [Conference Presentation Abstract]. Nineteenth European Federation of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Congress, Barcelona, Spain; )2018, May 30-June 1)
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Calliess T, Ettinger M, Savov P, Karkosch R, Windhagen H. Individualized alignment in total knee arthroplasty using image-based robotic assistance : video article. Orthopade 2018; 47 (10) 871-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Malkani AL, Roche MW, Kolisek FR. et al. Manipulation under anesthesia rates in technology-assisted versus conventional-instrumentation total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 336-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yang HY, Seon JK, Shin YJ, Lim HA, Song EK. Robotic total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate-retaining implant: a 10-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Surg 2017; 9 (02) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Liow MHL, Chin PL, Yeo SJ. Total knee arthroplasty technique: tsolution one (Robodoc). In: Lonner JH. ed. Robotics in Knee and Hip Arthroplasty. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2019: 195-201
    Google Scholar