[Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty with image-based and image-independent robotic support]

Do PROMs or Sensor-Based Monitoring Detect Improvements in Patients' Knee Function After Total-Knee Arthroplasty?-A Study Protocol for a Prospective Controlled Study

Determining whether preoperative performance-based knee function predicts postoperative performance-based knee function and whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed by participants can detect these changes could significantly enhance the planning of postoperative rehabilitation for patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aims to collect data on performance-based knee function using inertial measurement units (IMUs) worn by participants both preoperatively and postoperatively. PROMs will be completed by the patients before and after surgery to assess their ability to detect the same changes in performance-based knee function measured by the sensors. Additionally, the study will investigate the correlation between the degree of knee alignment correction and postoperative performance-based knee function in participants after TKA.

Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them

INTRODUCTION

A review of the data supporting robotic systems currently available is presented focussing on precision and reproducibility, radiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and survivorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Scientific literature published on robotic systems for knee arthroplasty was reviewed using the reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any study involving robotic-assisted UKA or TKA that reported precision of implant positioning or functional outcomes or range of motion or survivorship, including cadaveric or dry bone studies with a minimum of 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were identified for robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 24 studies for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Those that reported on radiological outcomes or cadaver studies consistently demonstrated improved precision with the use of robotic systems irrespective of the system. PROMS and survival data demonstrated equivalent short-term results. However, many studies reported outcomes inconsistently and few had long-term clinical follow-up or survivorship data.

CONCLUSIONS

This review adds to the body of evidence supporting improved precision and reproducibility with robotic assistance in knee arthroplasty. Despite intensive funding of research into robotic knee systems, there remains considerable heterogeneity in exposure and outcome analysis and few quality long-term studies demonstrating translation to better clinical outcomes and implant survivorship.

Imageless robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA : Surgical technique and case-control study compared with primary robotic TKA

Background and objective

It is evident from the national joint registries that numbers of revision knee arthroplasty operations are rising. The aim of this article is to introduce a new robotic-assisted approach in UKA to TKA revision arthroplasty and investigate the alignment accuracy, implant component use and surgery time and to compare it to primary robotic-assisted TKA arthroplasty.

Methods

This retrospective, case-control study included patients undergoing image-less robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA (n = 20) and patients undergoing image-less robotic-assisted primary TKA (control group, n = 20) from 11/2018 to 07/2020. The control group was matched based on the BMI and natural alignment. Comparison of groups was based on postoperative alignment, outlier rate, tibial insert size, lateral bone resection depth, incision-to-wound closure time. All surgeries were performed by a single senior surgeon using the same bi-cruciate stabilizing TKA system. Statistical analysis consisted of parametric t‑testing and Fisher’s exact test with a level of significance of p < 0.05.

Results

The two groups showed no differences in mean BMI, natural alignment (p > 0.05) and mean overall limb alignment. No outlier was found for OLA and slope analysis. The smallest insert size (9 mm) was used in 70% of the cases in the revision group (n = 14) and in 90% of the cases in the primary group (n = 18, p = 0.24), distal femoral and tibial resection depth showed no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The incision to wound closure time was longer in the revision group but showed no significant difference.

Conclusion

Image-less robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA showed a comparable surgery time, and alignment accuracy in comparison to primary robotic-assisted TKA. Comparable bone preservation and subsequent tibial insert size use was observed for both groups.