Descriptive and Analytical Analysis of the Implementation of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Unicompartmental Arthroplasty in a Health Center

Abstract

Introduction Robot-assisted surgery has revolutionized various surgical specialties, including orthopedics, by optimizing the precision of implant alignment and positioning. This advancement could be particularly relevant in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, were alignment issues impact implant durability. However, the transition to this technology faces challenges such as high costs and the surgical learning curve.

Objective To evaluate the implementation of robot-assisted surgery in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, including a structured training phase and its impact on surgical time and radiological outcomes.

Method The NAVIO robotic system was used in a structured process with two phases: laboratory (plastic models and cadaveric specimens) and clinical (16 patients). The analyzed outcomes included surgical time, radiological alignment, and procedural success.

Results In the laboratory phase, surgical time significantly decreased in plastic models (p < 0.01). Although no significant differences were found in radiological measurements between the initial and advanced groups, the frequency of successful alignments improved in the clinical phase. In the latter, multivariate analysis showed greater homogeneity compared to the laboratory phase.

Conclusions Structured training helped reduce variability in surgical time and improve initial clinical outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of proper preparation to optimize the use of robotic systems in orthopedic surgery.

Keywords

knee arthroplasty - robotic surgery - surgical time - surgical training

Research Ethics and Patient Consent

The written consent for the publication of patient details was in the ethics committee document.

Publication History

Received: 05 March 2023

Accepted: 21 March 2025

Article published online:
20 May 2025

• Referencias

• 1 Maza G, Sharma A. Past, Present, and Future of Robotic Surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2020; 53 (06) 935-941
• 2 Foissey C, Batailler C, Vahabi A, Fontalis A, Servien E, Lustig S. Better accuracy and implant survival in medial imageless robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: two- to eleven-year follow-up of three hundred fifty-six consecutive knees. Int Orthop 2023; 47 (02) 533-541
• 3 Negrín R, Ferrer G, Iñiguez M. et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review. J Robot Surg 2020; •••: 1-13
• 4 Assor M, Aubaniac JM. [Influence of rotatory malposition of femoral implant in failure of unicompartimental medial knee prosthesis]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 2006; 92 (05) 473-484
• 5 Murray DW, Liddle AD, Dodd CA, Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (10, Suppl A) 3-8
• 6 Mohammad HR, Judge A, Murray DW. The influence of surgeon caseload and usage on the long-term outcomes of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an analysis of data from the national joint registry for England, Wales, northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (02) 245-251
• 7 Weber M, Worlicek M, Voellner F. et al. Surgical training does not affect operative time and outcome in total knee arthroplasty. PLoS One 2018; 13 (06) e0197850
• 8 Bini S, Khatod M, Cafri G, Chen Y, Paxton EW. Surgeon, implant, and patient variables may explain variability in early revision rates reported for unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (24) 2195-2202
• 9 Kennedy JA, Palan J, Mellon SJ. et al. Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (12) 3926-3934
• 10 Konan S, Maden C, Robbins A. Robotic surgery in hip and knee arthroplasty. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2017; 78 (07) 378-384
• 11 Atesok K, Mabrey JD, Jazrawi LM, Egol KA. Surgical simulation in orthopaedic skills training. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012; 20 (07) 410-422
• 12 Iñiguez M, Negrín R, Duboy J, Reyes NO, Díaz R. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: increasing surgical accuracy? A cadaveric study. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (06) 628-634
• 13 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B [phone]
• 14 Wallace D, Gregori A, Picard F. et al, Eds. The learning curve of a novel handheld robotic system for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic proceedings; 2014: Bone & Joint.
• 15 Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013 (01) 481039
• 16 Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 2004; 11 (05) 363-367