No difference in PROMs between robotic-assisted CR versus PS total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study

Robotic assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is not associated with increased patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common orthopedic surgery, yet postoperative dissatisfaction persists in around 20% of cases. Robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) promises enhanced precision, but its impact on patient satisfaction compared to conventional TKA remains controversial (cTKA). This systematic review aims to evaluate patient satisfaction post-rTKA and compare outcomes with cTKA.

METHODS

Papers from the following databases were identified and reviewed: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Online Library, using keywords like "Knee replacement," "Total knee arthroplasty," "Robotic," and "Patient satisfaction." Extracted data included patient satisfaction measures, Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Forgotten Joint Score, SF-36, HSS, and KOOS. Statistical analysis, including odds ratio and 95% CI was performed using R software. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q test.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 17 articles, involving 1148 patients (571 in the rTKA group and 577 in the cTKA group) assessing patient satisfaction following rTKA. An analysis of proportions reveals rTKA satisfaction rate was 95%, while for cTKA, it was 91%. A meta-analysis comparing rTKA and cTKA found no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction. Additionally, various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were examined, showing mixed results across different studies and follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study found no difference in patient satisfaction outcomes in the short to mid-term for rTKA compared to conventional methods. This study does not assert superiority for the robotic approach, highlighting the need for careful consideration of various factors influencing outcomes in knee arthroplasty.

Changes in femoral rollback and rotation with increasing coupling in knee arthroplasty-a biomechanical in-vitro study

BACKGROUND

After total knee arthroplasty, 10-30% of patients still complain about knee pain, even after exact positioning of the components. Altered knee kinematics are crucial in this regard. The aim of our study was to experimentally determine the influence of different degrees of component coupling of knee prostheses on joint kinematics during muscle-loaded knee flexion in-vitro.

METHODS

Femoral rollback and femoral rotation of a standard cruciate retaining (GCR), a posterior stabilized (GPS), a rotational hinge (RSL) and a total hinge (SSL) design of the same series of knee replacement implants (SL-series) of one single manufacturer (Waldemar Link GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were analyzed and set in relation to the motion of the corresponding native knee in a paired study design. All different coupling degrees were analyzed in the same human knees. To simulate muscle loaded knee flexion, a knee simulator was used. Kinematics were measured with an ultrasonic motion capture system and integrated in a calculated coordinate system via CT-imaging.

RESULTS

The largest posterior motion on the lateral side was found for the native knee (8.7 ± 7.0 mm), followed by the GPS (3.2 ± 5.1 mm) and GCR (2.8 ± 7.3 mm) implants, while no motion was found for the RSL (0.1 ± 3.0 mm) and the SSL (-0.6 ± 2.7 mm) implants. In contrast, on the medial side, only the native knee showed a posterior motion (2.1 ± 3.2 mm). Regarding femoral external rotation, the only implant where the observed difference did not reach statistical significance when compared to the native knee was the GCR (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The GCR and GPS kinematics closely imitate those of the native joint. Medial femoral rollback is reduced, however, with the joint pivoting around a rotational center located in the medial plateau. Without additional rotational forces, the coupled RSL and SSL prostheses closely resemble each other with no femoral rollback or relevant rotational component. The femoral axis, however, shifts ventrally in both models when compared with their primary counterparts. The positioning of the coupling mechanism in the femoral and tibial component thus can already lead to altered joint kinematics even in prostheses with an identical surface geometry.

No difference in clinical outcomes between functionally aligned cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of subjects undergoing primary robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA), following functional alignment (FA) principles, with cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) bearing designs, at a minimum of 24 months of follow-up.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective study included 167 consecutive patients undergoing RA-TKA with cemented PS and cementless CR implants performed with a CT-base robotic-arm assisted system (Mako, Stryker), following FA principles, between 2017 and 2020. Patients were followed up with a clinical and radiographic assessment and were administered the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR), and the 5-level Likert scale (5-LLS).

RESULTS

Three TKA revisions were performed (2 PS, 1 CR); therefore, a total of 164 knees with a mean age of 71.7 years (SD 8.9) were considered (80 cemented PS; 84 cementless CR). No statistically significant differences were recorded between study groups relative to FJS-12, KOOS-JR, and 5-LLS at a minimum of two year follow-up (FJS-12 89.3 ± 9.2 vs 87.5 ± 12.8, p-value 0.46; KOOS-JR 88.8 ± 10.0 vs 86.7 ± 14.0, p-value 0.31; 5-LLS 4.5 ± 0.7 vs 4.5 ± 0.8, p-value 0.34).

CONCLUSION

No significant outcome differences were reported between patients undergoing PS and CR RA-TKA at a minimum of two year follow-up. RA-TKA achieves excellent clinical results and high satisfaction scores, regardless of the implant design used.

Is it prime time for robotic-assisted TKAs? A systematic review of current studies

Introduction

Less-than-optimum positioning of femoral and tibial components and improper soft tissue tension, with abnormal loads and reduced range of motion, may cause lower patient satisfaction rates. To reduce surgeon-related variables during TKA, technology-assisted TKA was introduced, including computer navigation and robotic-assisted surgery (RATKA). Although several studies show promising short- and long-term functional and radiological outcomes of RATKA, there are still concerns related to its absolute superiority over conventional TKA.

Methods

This review aims to provide an updated insight into the most recent articles reporting on outcomes (functional, radiological, and complications) of RATKA through a systematic search of major databases. A comprehensive English literature search was performed by both authors through four databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). The full text of the final eligible studies was evaluated for inclusion, resulting in 13 studies that are included in this review.

Results

There were 2112 knees in the 13 studies, with a follow-up ranging from three months to 13 years; only three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nine directly compared the results of RATKA with CTKA technique. Seven studies reported the operative time ranging from 76.8 to 156 min; six reported a longer operative time with RATKA. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was reported in six studies which ranged from 0.48 to 2.1 days; in four studies the LOS was shorter with RATKA. In seven of the nine studies comparing RATKA with CTKA, no difference in functional outcomes was found. Four out of six studies reported that the overall alignment had mechanical alignment within ±3° of neutral alignment in all RATKA patients with an HKA ranging from -0.3 to 1.8°. Only one study reported better radiological outcomes in the RATKA group. In six comparative studies, no difference was found in the incidence of complications between RATKA and CTKA.

Conclusion

Although robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is a promising technology that provides better component alignment and superior early functional outcomes, the justification for its widespread adoption needs more robust evidence through well-designed and better long-term studies demonstrating superior, predictable, and durable clinical results compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty techniques.