Pin-Related Complications in Computer Navigated and Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Intraincisional Pin Placement is Safe for Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has seen a major increase in its utilization, it requires bone array pins to be fixed into the femur and tibia, which intrinsically carries a risk. As it is currently off-label with some robotic platforms to place pins intraincisional, we aimed to evaluate the safety of intraincisional pin placement during RA-TKAs.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 2,343 patients who underwent RA-TKA at a North American Healthcare System between January 2018 and March 2022 was included. Primary outcomes included periprosthetic fracture or infection (eg, superficial or deep). Secondary outcomes included 1-year reoperation rate due to any cause. Cases were retrospectively reviewed to determine whether complications could be attributed to metaphyseal intraincisional pin placement (4.0 mm pins; two tibial and two femoral). The 90-day follow-up was 100% and the 1-year follow-up rate was 70.6% (n = 1,655).

RESULTS

The pin-site related periprosthetic fracture incidence at 90 days was 0.09% (2 out of 2,343). The 90-day infection incidence was 1.4% (superficial: 22; deep: 13). The 1-year reoperation rate was 1.8% (29 out of 1,655). The most common causes of reoperation at 1-year were deep infection (n = 14; 0.83%), superficial infection (n = 3; 0.18%), periprosthetic fracture, mechanical symptoms, instability, and hematoma (n = 2; 0.12% for each).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 1,172 patients may experience a pin-related periprosthetic fracture after RA-TKA with intraincisional bone array pin placement. There was a low 90-day infection incidence and reoperations within 1-year after RA-TKA were rare.

Troubleshooting Robotics During Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

The introduction of new surgical technology highlights appreciable concerns; robotic arthroplasty is no exception. Acquiring comprehensive understanding of the robotic technology to avoid complications during surgery and devising troubleshooting strategies to overcome potential difficulties is of paramount importance. Troubleshooting algorithms depend on the stage of the procedure and problem encountered, such as loosening of the pins or array, registration or verification problems, or malfunctioning of the device, which is rare. This article aims to outline reproducible workflows and solutions for troubleshooting during robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty.

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.

[Translated article] Current situation of robotics in knee prosthetic surgery: A technology that has come to stay?

Robotic surgery is a surgical technique that is on the rise. The goal of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) is to provide the surgeon with a tool to accurately execute bone cuts according to previous surgical planning to restore knee kinematics and balance of soft tissue, being able to precisely apply the type of alignment that we choose. In addition, RA-TKA is a very useful tool for training. Within the limitations, there is the learning curve, the need for specific equipment, the high cost of the devices, the increase in radiation in some systems and that each robot is linked to a specific type of implant. Current studies show, with RA-TKA, variations in the alignment of the mechanical axis are reduced, postoperative pain is improved and earlier discharge is facilitated. On the other hand, there are no differences in terms of range of motion, alignment, gap balance, complications, surgical time or functional results.

A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty typically necessitates use of tracking pins, which can vary in diameter. Complications such as infections and fractures at the pin-site have been observed, but clarification of the effect of pin diameter on complication is needed. The aim of this study is to compare the pin-related complication rates following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm diameter pins.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 90-day pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty were compared between 4.5 mm diameter and 3.2 mm diameter groups. In total, 367 patients were included: 177 with large pin diameter and 190 with small pin diameter. All four pin sites were evaluated using postoperative radiographs. Cases without orthogonal views or visualization of all four pin tracts were noted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for age, which differed between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

The rate of pin-site complications was 5.6% in the large pin diameter cohort and 2.6% in the small pin diameter cohort, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. The adjusted odds ratio for complications in small compared to large diameter group was 0.48, with a p-value of 0.18. The most common pin-site complication was infection/persistent drainage, found in 1.9% of patients, followed by intraoperative fracture of the second cortex in 1.4%. Intraoperative fracture could not be ruled out in 96 cases due to inadequate radiographic visualization of all pin sites. There was one postoperative pin-site fracture in the large diameter cohort, which required operative fixation.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in pin-site complication rates after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty between 4.5 mm and 3.2 mm pin diameter cohorts, although there was a trend towards increased intraoperative and postoperative pin-site fractures in the 4.5 mm group.

Where are We Now and What are We Hoping to Achieve with Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been developed to improve knee kinematics and functional outcomes, expedite recovery, and improve implants long-term survivorship. Robotic devices are classified into active, semi-active, and passive, based on their degree of freedom. Their capacity to provide increased accuracy in implants positioning with reduced radiographic outliers has been widely proved. However, these early advantages are yet to be associated with long-term survivorship. Moreover, multiple drawbacks are still encountered including a variable learning curve, increased setup and maintenance costs, and potential complications related to the surgical technique. Despite recent technologies applied to TKA have failed to prove substantial improvements, robotic-assisted surgery seems to be here to stay and revolutionize the field of TKA. To support its consistent usage on a daily basis, long-term results are still awaited, and further improvements are necessary to reduce the expenses related to it.

[Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis]

Robotic-assisted arthroplasty has been rapidly entering clinical routine in recent years. The leading endoprosthesis manufacturers have all meanwhile placed robotic systems on the market, which, however, differ significantly from one another technically. Current systems are currently classified according to the degree of autonomy (active vs. semi-active vs. passive) and the data/image source (image-based: CT vs. X‑ray, imageless). Some systems already offer the possibility of robotic-assisted or navigated implantation of hip endoprostheses. In the following review article, the currently leading robotic systems will be presented and compared with regard to their characteristics. Furthermore, the analysis of the learning curves for the different systems, currently available cost analysis models and an outlook on future developments and challenges will be given.