Assessment of accuracy of an imageless hand-held robotic-assisted system in component positioning in total knee replacement: a prospective study

Tourniquet does not affect intraoperative kinematics during total knee arthroplasty: Results of a prospective study using a robotic assistance system

PURPOSE

Tourniquet use during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. There are limited data demonstrating the effect of tourniquet use on flexion and extension gaps. The use of a tourniquet can theoretically affect the kinematics of the knee joint, specifically the extension and flexion gaps and the laxity, by mechanically compressing the soft tissues including the muscles above the knee joint. Therefore, this study was designed to prospectively evaluate changes in flexion and extension gaps with and without the use of a tourniquet.

METHODS

The following prospective study included 50 consecutive patients who underwent TKA using a surgical robot. The inclusion criteria were advanced osteoarthritis (OA) and varus-alignment or valgus-alignment <3° (hip-knee-ankle angle, standing long-leg X-ray), and the exclusion criteria were BMI >35 kg/m2 and mechanical axis in >3° valgus. A CR-TKA was performed, and the medial and lateral gaps (in mm) throughout the full range of motion in 10° increments were recorded. The procedure was conducted both with and without an applied tourniquet (350 mmHg).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the medial joint space. By contrast, the lateral gap showed significant differences in 10-20° of flexion (with a tourniquet 1.9 mm vs. without a tourniquet 2.1 mm, p = 0.018), 20-30° (1.6 vs. 1.8 mm, p = 0.02), 100-110° (0.9 vs. 1.1 mm, p = 0.021), and 110-120° (0.8 vs. 1 mm, p = 0.038). Thus, at the above degrees of flexion on the lateral side, there was a decrease in the mean of 0.2 mm with the use of a tourniquet.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of a tourniquet showed a detectable change in the lateral gap in four 10° segments of flexion, clinical relevance with an average difference of 0.2 mm is not achieved. Thus, the use of a tourniquet in TKA can still be advocated based on the presented data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Two- and three-dimensional evaluations following handheld robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty

Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has proven to be successful in improving the accuracy of component positioning and reducing radiographic outliers. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the alignment of the components using two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) measurements following handheld imageless robot-assisted TKA. Seventy consecutive patients underwent primary TKA at our institution using a handheld robot-assisted system. Full-length standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained 2 weeks after surgery for assessment of 2D component alignments. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images were obtained to assess 3D component alignment. The reference points defined on preoperative CT images were transferred to the postoperative CT images. The absolute errors in the 2D and 3D component alignments from the planned, validated cutting, and validated implantation angles were calculated. Outliers of >  ± 3° of femoral and tibial component alignments in the coronal and sagittal planes were also investigated. All absolute errors in the 2D and 3D component alignments were < 1°, except for the planned and validated cutting angles of the femoral sagittal alignment. No outliers were observed in the femoral or tibial component in the coronal plane. Significant differences between the 2D and 3D measurements were observed for the mean absolute value from the planned and validated cutting angles in the femoral sagittal plane and from the validated implantation angle in the tibial coronal plane. The handheld robot-assisted system demonstrated a high accuracy for component alignment using 2D and 3D evaluations.

Comparison of accuracy and early outcomes in robotic total knee arthroplasty using NAVIO and ROSA

This study aimed to compare the cutting and component placement accuracies and early outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between an image-free handheld robotic system (NAVIO) and a radiography-based robotic system (ROSA). This retrospective study included 88 patients (88 knees) who underwent TKA using the NAVIO (40 patients) or ROSA (48 patients) robotic systems. The accuracies of the robotic systems were compared. Clinical scores were evaluated using the Knee Society Score 2011 (KSS 2011) and the forgotten joint score (FJS)-12 at 1 year postoperatively. The femoral sagittal cutting error was smaller in the NAVIO group than in the ROSA group. The other cutting errors were not statistically different in both groups. Implantation errors did not differ between the groups. Regarding the clinical outcomes of the KSS 2011 subscales, the symptoms score was higher in knees operated using ROSA than in those using NAVIO. The other KSS 2011 subscales and the FJS-12 showed no differences between the two groups. In conclusion, the femoral sagittal cutting error was smaller in the NAVIO group than in the ROSA group, and the KSS 2011 symptom score subsection at one year was higher in the knees operated using ROSA than in those using NAVIO.

NAVIO RATKA shows similar rates of hemoglobin-drop, adverse events, readmission and early revision vs conventional TKA: a single centre retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Despite widespread adoption of NAVIO robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (NAVIO RATKA) in clinical practice, clinical outcome in terms of adverse events and complications remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare adverse events, length of stay, surgical time, hemoglobin drop, early readmission rate and revision rate between conventional TKA (CTKA) and NAVIO RATKA.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort analysis compared 230 NAVIO RATKA patients to 489 CTKA patients with a minimal follow-up of 12 months. Baseline demographic and comorbidity parameters were collected, as well as length of stay, revision rate and reason for revision, early readmission rate (< 6w) and reason for readmission, post-operative hemoglobin levels, adverse events, surgical time and operating room time. Data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data without normal distribution and ordinal data, categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

There were no clinically relevant baseline demographic or comorbidity differences between groups. CTKA had shorter length of stay than NAVIO RATKA (5.0 days vs 5.4 days, p = 0.010) but trended towards a higher reoperation rate (4.1% vs 1.7%, p = .144, n.s). No differences were found in hemoglobin drop, readmission rate or overall incidence of adverse events, but CTKA showed more hematoma formation (1.6% vs 0%, p = .044) and higher incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (1% vs 0%, p = n.s.), whilst NAVIO RATKA showed more periprosthetic fractures and persistent wound drainage (0.4% vs 2.2%, p = .038 and 0.6% vs 4.3%, p = .001, respectively). Surgical time remained significantly longer in NAVIO RATKA during all 230 cases (87 min vs 67.6 min) and showed a continuous downward trend.

CONCLUSIONS

This study further validates the usage of NAVIO RATKA as a safe method to perform TKA, with comparable short term outcomes to CTKA in terms of early revisions and adverse events. Surgeons should be mindful of the differing adverse event profile in NAVIO RATKA and adjust their patient selection accordingly to ensure optimal outcomes. In addition, surgeons using NAVIO RATKA should expect a linear learning curve and a surgical time exceeding that of CTKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (therapeutic retrospective cohort study).

A comparison of robotic-assisted and manual techniques in restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty: coronal alignment improvement with no significant clinical differences

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare radiographic and clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional manual techniques in restricted kinematically aligned TKA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent either manual or robotic-assisted restricted kinematically aligned TKA between 2019 and 2020 were included in this retrospective comparative study. Radiographic outcomes comprised coronal plane measurements performed through standing full-length anteroposterior radiographs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford score, Visual Analog Scale pain and satisfaction score, and Forgotten Joint Score were used to determine the clinical outcome. The continuous data were compared by Student's t test according to the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov normality test.

RESULTS

The manual group consisted of 46 patients (38 females, eight males) with a mean age of 68.1 years, and the robotic group consisted of 70 patients (58 females, 12 males) with a mean age of 65.7 years (n.s.). Preoperatively, no significant difference was observed between groups concerning demographic characteristics, radiographic measurements, and clinical scores except for the symptom and pain domains of the KOOS score, which was significantly worse in the manual group (p = 0.011 and 0.035, respectively). At the postoperative 2-year follow-up, we observed significant differences between groups with respect to the mean HKA angle, mMPTA, and mLDFA (p = 0.034, 0.041, and 0.005, respectively). A comparison of clinical scores at the postoperative 2-year follow-up demonstrated no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that using robotic-assisted technique for restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) resulted in significantly better outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique in achieving normal ranges of lower extremity coronal alignment measurements. While the robotic-assisted group demonstrated better clinical scores, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the robotic-assisted group and the control group at the two-year follow-up. Concerning clinical relevance, the restoration of original anatomy and coronal alignment, a crucial concern in restricted kinematically aligned TKA, may be better achieved by the robotic-assisted technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (Retrospective cohort study).

Technological innovations in shoulder replacement: current concepts and the future of robotics in total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been rapidly evolving over the last several decades, with innovative technological strategies being investigated and developed in order to achieve optimal component precision and joint alignment and stability, preserve implant longevity, and improve patient outcomes. Future advancements such as robotic-assisted surgeries, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and other peri- and preoperative planning tools will continue to revolutionize TSA. Robotic-assisted arthroplasty is a novel and increasingly popular alternative to the conventional arthroplasty procedure in the hip and knee but has not yet been investigated in the shoulder. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a narrative review of the literature on the evolution and projected trends of technological advances and robotic assistance in total shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

A narrative synthesis method was employed for this review, rather than a meta-analysis or systematic review of the literature. This decision was based on 2 primary factors: (1) the lack of eligible, peer-reviewed studies with high-quality level of evidence available for review on robotic-assisted shoulder arthroplasty, and (2) a narrative review allows for a broader scope of content analysis, including a comprehensive review of all technological advances-including robotics-within the field of TSA. A general literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. These databases were queried by 2 independent reviewers from database inception through November 11, 2022, for all articles investigating the role of robotics and technology assistance in total shoulder arthroplasty. Inclusion criteria included studies describing "shoulder arthroplasty" and "robotics."

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria were applied, 4 studies on robotic-assisted TSA were described in the review. Given the novelty of this technology and limited data on robotics in TSA, these studies consisted of a literature review, nonvalidated experimental biomechanical studies in sawbones models, and preclinical proof-of-concept cadaveric studies using prototype robotic technology primarily in conjunction with PSI. The remaining studies described the technological advancements in TSA, including PSI, computer-assisted navigation, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and virtual, augmented, and mixed reality. Although not yet commercially available, robotic-assisted TSA confers the theoretical advantages of precise humeral head cuts for restoration of proximal humerus anatomy, more accurate glenoid preparation, and improved soft-tissue assessment in limited early studies.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for the use of robotics in total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty demonstrates improved component accuracy, more precise radiographic measurements, and improved early/mid-term patient-reported and functional outcomes. Although no such data currently exist for shoulder arthroplasty given that the technology has not yet been commercialized, the lessons learned from robotic hip and knee surgery in conjunction with its rapid adoption suggests robotic-assisted TSA is on the horizon of innovation. By achieving a better understanding of the past, present, and future innovations in TSA through this narrative review, orthopedic surgeons can be better prepared for future applications.

The evolution of robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty, each system must be assessed for its own value: a systematic review of clinical evidence and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic systems have been introduced to improve the precision of total knee arthroplasty. However, different robotic systems are available, each with unique features used to plan and execute the surgery. As such, due to this diversity, the clinical evaluation of each robotic platform should be separated.

METHODS

An extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science was conducted with subsequent meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included regarding robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Evaluated outcomes included clinical results, surgical precision, ligament balance, surgical time, learning curve, complications and revision rates. These were split up based on the robot-specific brand: ROBODOC (T-SOLUTION ONE), OMNIBOT, MAKO, NAVIO (CORI) and ROSA.

RESULTS

With a follow-up of more than 10 years, no improved clinical outcomes have been noted with the ROBODOC system compared to the conventional technique. If available, other platforms only present short-term clinical outcomes. Radiological outcomes are published for most robotic setups, demonstrating improved surgical precision compared to the conventional technique. Gap balance assessment is performed differently between all systems, leading to heterogeneous outcomes regarding its relationship on clinical outcomes. There is a similar learning curve based on operative time for all robotic platforms. In most studies, robot assistance requires longer operative time compared to the conventional technique. Complications and revision rates are published for ROBODOC and MAKO, without clear differences to conventional total knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this systematic review is that the current evidence regarding each robotic system is diverse in quantity and quality. Each system has its own specificities and must be assessed for its own value. Regarding scientific literature, the generic term of robotic should be banned from the general conclusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review level IV.

Learning curve for robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty: our experience with imageless hand-held Navio system

The main purpose of this study was to determine the learning curve of Robotic assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty surgery through assessment of operative time and comparison with that of conventional jig based Total Knee Arthroplasty. The study included our first 75 Robotic assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty and 25 randomly selected conventional jig-based Total knee arthroplasty from June 2017 to December 2017. The 75 cases were divided into 3 groups of 25 consecutive cases. The mean of operative time for each phase and total time was compared between the 3 groups and with the mean of total time for conventional jig based group. In our experience, Robotic assisted Total Knee arthroplasty was associated with a learning curve of approximately 25 cases. The mean for Registration phase of Group A (1st set of 25 cases) was 6.12 min (SD 1.8 min), group B (2nd set of 25 cases) was 4.46 min (SD 0.79 min) and group C (3rd set of 25 cases) was 4.17 min (SD 0.59 min). The mean for Planning phase of group A was 5.08 min (SD 1.01 min), group B was 4.04 min (SD 0.37 min) and group C was 4.01 min (SD 0.35 min). The mean for Cutting Phase of group A was 28.22 min (SD 6.24 min), group B was 22.49 min (SD 0.79 min) and group C was 22.36 min (SD 0.88 min). The mean for total time of group A was 39.42 min (SD 8.02), group B was 31 min (SD 1.22 min), group C was 30.53 min (SD 1.14 min) and conventional group was 30.54 min (SD 1.14 min). On comparing the Registration phase (Group A vs B, p < 0.001; Group B vs C, p 0.14; Group A vs C, p < 0.001), Planning phase (Group A vs B, p < 0.001; Group B vs C, p 0.75; Group A vs C, p < 0.001), Cutting phase (Group A vs B, p < 0.001; Group B vs C, p 0.58; Group A vs C, p < 0.001) and Total time (Group A vs B, p < 0.001; Group B vs C, p 0.74; Group A vs C, p < 0.001; Group A vs Conventional, p < 0.001; Group B vs Conventional, p 0.17, Group C vs Conventional, p 0.99), the results showed that the inflection point for learning curve in our hands was 25 cases. The learning curve and increased operation theatre time are likely to be major barrier in widespread acceptance of robotic technology amongst arthroplasty surgeons. We, in our experience can say that the learning curve was approximately 25 cases. The results of this study will help the arthroplasty surgeons in accepting this technology and achieve better outcomes.