Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(08): 814-819
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743232
Original Article

Early Superior Clinical Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted TKA Compared to Conventional TKA in the Same Patient: A Comparative Analysis

Muzaffar Ali
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
,
Anthony Kamson 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
,
Charlie Yoo
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
,
Inderpreet Singh
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
,
Christopher Ferguson
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
,
Raymond Dahl
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UPMC Pinnacle, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
2   Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has demonstrated improved alignment and outcome scores when compared with manual total knee arthroplasty (M-TKA); however, few studies compare differences in the same patient. This study is a retrospective review that assesses clinical outcomes of 36 patients who underwent a primary RA-TKA and had undergone a prior contralateral M-TKA. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon at the same institution. Patients were assessed for differences in hospital length of stay, improvement in pre- versus postoperative range of motion, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test were utilized to detect significant differences. Patient demographics showed a mean age of 64.5, 24 females (67%), and mean body mass index of 35.1 ± 5.7. The average follow-up time was 2.9 years for M-TKA and 1.3 years for RA-TKA. Hospital length of stay was decreased by 5.5 hours for RA-TKA (p = 0.03). Total postoperative WOMAC score was not statistically different between RA-TKA and M-TKA (p = 0.061); however, pain and stiffness components were statistically improved in RA-TKA (p = 0.041 and p = 0.007), respectively. KOOS was higher in RA-TKA, which approached statistical significance (p = 0.005). Pre- versus postoperative knee flexion improved significantly in both cohorts. There was a significant difference in pre- versus postoperative range of motion at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up after RA-TKA in comparison to M-TKA (p < 0.05). There were no postoperative complications. Patients who underwent RA-TKA demonstrated early improvement at 1-year follow-up in pain, stiffness, and knee flexion when compared with their prior contralateral M-TKA. There was a significant decrease in postoperative length of stay by 5.5 hours in the RA-TKA group. Limitations include a small sample size and differences in follow-up times between RA-TKA and M-TKA

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty - TKA - knee replacement - conventional knee arthroplasty


Publication History

Received: 22 August 2021

Accepted: 09 January 2022

Article published online:
18 February 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zelhart M, Kaiser AM. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice. Surg Endosc 2018; 32 (01) 24-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Matthews CA. New developments in robotics and single-site gynecologic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 60 (02) 296-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Miller BA, Salehi A, Limbrick Jr DD, Smyth MD. Applications of a robotic stereotactic arm for pediatric epilepsy and neurooncology surgery. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2017; 20 (04) 364-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 Urish KL, Conditt M, Roche M, Rubash HE. Robotic total knee arthroplasty: surgical assistant for a customized normal kinematic knee. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (05) e822-e827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schiraldi M, Bonzanini G, Chirillo D, de Tullio V. Mechanical and kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (07) 130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Mechanical, anatomical, and kinematic axis in TKA: concepts and practical applications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014; 7 (02) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Agarwal N, To K, McDonnell S, Khan W. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (11) 3393-3409.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
  • 13 Bhimani SJ, Bhimani R, Smith A, Eccles C, Smith L, Malkani A. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrates decreased postoperative pain and opioid usage compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open 2020; 1 (02) 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB. et al. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428) 26-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Davies AP. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee 2002; 9 (04) 261-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Liow MHL, Goh GS, Wong MK, Chin PL, Tay DK, 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
  • 19 Zhu M, Ang CL, Yeo SJ, Lo NN, Chia SL, Chong HC. Minimally invasive computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 1000-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ. Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (04) 477-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (07) 1054-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar