MacAskill M, Peluso R, Lash J, Hewett TE, Bullock M, Caughran A. A Three-dimensional Comparison of Pre- and Post-component Position in a Series of Off-label Robotic-assisted Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.
Arthroplast Today 2024;
25:101310. [PMID:
38229867 PMCID:
PMC10788208 DOI:
10.1016/j.artd.2023.101310]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Background
The application of robotic-assisted arthroplasty in revision knee scenarios continues to evolve. This study compares the pre- and post-revision implant positions in series of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) using a robotic arm system.
Methods
Twenty-five consecutive off-label robotic-assisted revision TKA were performed. After virtual revision femoral and tibial components were positioned to achieve "balanced" medial and lateral flexion and extension gaps, the existing primary implants (PI) were removed, and bone cuts were executed with the robotic arm system. Preoperative coronal, sagittal, and axial position of the PI was compared to the final planned positions of the robotic revision implants (RRI) for each subject. A repeated measures ANOVA using the absolute difference in millimeters and degrees between the PI and RRI orientation was completed.
Results
Intra-operatively, the virtual gaps were balanced within the planning software followed by successful execution of the plan. There was a statistically significant difference between posterior condylar offset and tibial component positioning for RRI compared to PI. There was no difference between the distal femoral component values between PI and RRI.
Conclusions
The sagittal alignment of the revision implants, specifically the femoral posterior condylar offset and tibial component slope, are statistically significant considerations for a stable revision TKA with off-label use of a robotic-arm system. Other potential benefits may include appropriate implant sizing which can affect the resultant ligamentous tension important for a functional revision TKA. Future research and software iterations will be needed to determine the overall accuracy and utility of robotic-assisted revision TKA.
Collapse