Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(08): 849-857
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721123
Original Article

Adoption of Robotic-Arm-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated with Decreased Use of Articular Constraint and Manipulation under Anesthesia Compared to a Manual Approach

Jenny Zhang
1   Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra, Northwell, Hempstead, New York
,
Chelsea N. Matzko
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Andrew Sawires
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Joseph O. Ehiorobo
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Michael A. Mont
1   Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra, Northwell, Hempstead, New York
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Matthew S. Hepinstall
1   Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra, Northwell, Hempstead, New York
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
3   NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
4   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Haptic robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) seeks to leverage three-dimensional planning, intraoperative assessment of ligament laxity, and guided bone preparation to establish and achieve patient-specific targets for implant position. We sought to compare (1) operative details, (2) knee alignment, (3) recovery of knee function, and (4) complications during adoption of this technique to our experience with manual TKA. We compared 120 RATKAs performed between December 2016 and July 2018 to 120 consecutive manual TKAs performed between May 2015 and January 2017. Operative details, lengths of stay (LOS), and discharge dispositions were collected. Tibiofemoral angles, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and ranges of motion were assessed until 3 months postoperatively. Manipulations under anesthesia, complications, and reoperations were tabulated. Mean operative times were 22 minutes longer in RATKA (p < 0.001) for this early cohort, but decreased by 27 minutes (p < 0.001) from the first 25 RATKA cases to the last 25 RATKA cases. Less articular constraint was used to achieve stability in RATKA (93 vs. 55% cruciate-retaining, p < 0.001; 3 vs. 35% posterior stabilized (PS), p < 0.001; and 4 vs. 10% varus-valgus constrained, p_ = _0.127). RATKA had lower LOS (2.7 vs. 3.4 days, p < 0.001). Discharge dispositions, tibiofemoral angles, KSS, and knee flexion angles did not differ, but manipulations were less common in RATKAs (4 vs. 17%, p = 0.013). We observed less use of constraint, shorter LOS, and fewer manipulations under anesthesia in RATKA, with no increase in complications. Operative times were longer, particularly early in the learning curve, but improved with experience. All measured patient-centered outcomes were equivalent or favored the newer technique, suggesting that RATKA with patient-specific alignment targets does not compromise initial quality. Observed differences may relate to improved ligament balance or diminished need for ligament release.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty


Publication History

Received: 06 March 2010

Accepted: 05 October 2020

Article published online:
03 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferrara F, Cipriani A, Magarelli N. et al. Implant positioning in TKA: comparison between conventional and patient-specific instrumentation. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (04) e271-e280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Le DH, Goodman SB, Maloney WJ, Huddleston JI. Current modes of failure in TKA: infection, instability, and stiffness predominate. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (07) 2197-2200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Meloni MC, Hoedemaeker RW, Violante B, Mazzola C. Soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2014; 2 (01) 37-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 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
  • 6 Kleeblad LJ, Zuiderbaan HA, Hooper GJ. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state of the art. J ISAKOS 2017; 2: 97-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
  • 9 Mullaji A, Shetty GM. Computer-assisted TKA: greater precision, doubtful clinical efficacy: opposes. Orthopedics 2009;32(09)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koenig JH, Hepinstall MS. Available robotic platforms in partial and total knee arthroplasty. Oper Tech Orthop 2015; 25 (02) 85-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?. Knee 2013; 20 (04) 268-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017; 6 (11) 631-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 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 Manjunath KS, Gopalakrishna KG, Vineeth G. Evaluation of alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (05) 895-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle 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 Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS, Elkus M, Rasquinha VJ, Rossi R, Babhulkar S. Total knee arthroplasty for severe valgus deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (Pt 2): (Suppl. 01) 271-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Paley D. Normal lower limb alignment and joint orientation. In: Principles of Deformity Correction. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 1-17
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS. et al. The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (01) 17-21
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M. et al. Does the robotic arm and preoperative CT planning help with 3D intraoperative total knee arthroplasty planning?. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (08) 742-749
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Onochie E, Al-Jabri T, Haddad FS. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4 (10) 611-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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