Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone-preserving treatment option for osteoarthritis localized to a single compartment in the knee. The success of the procedure is sensitive to patient selection and alignment errors. Robotic arm-assisted UKA provides technological assistance to intraoperative bony resection accuracy, which is thought to improve ligament balancing. This paper presents the five-year outcomes of a comparison between manual and robotically assisted UKAs. Methods. The trial design was a prospective, randomized, parallel, single-centre study comparing surgical alignment in patients undergoing UKA for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis (ISRCTN77119437). Participants underwent surgery using either robotic arm-assisted surgery or conventional manual instrumentation. The primary outcome measure (surgical accuracy) has previously been reported, and, along with secondary outcomes, were collected at one-, two-, and five-year timepoints. Analysis of five-year results and longitudinal analysis for all timepoints was performed to compare the two groups. Results. Overall, 104 (80%) patients of the original 130 who received surgery were available at five years (55 robotic, 49 manual). Both procedures reported successful results over all outcomes. At five years, there were no statistical differences between the groups in any of the patient reported or clinical outcomes. There was a lower reintervention rate in the robotic arm-assisted group with 0% requiring further surgery compared with six (9%) of the manual group requiring additional surgical intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion. This study has shown excellent clinical outcomes in both groups with no statistical or clinical differences in the patient-reported outcome measures. The notable difference was the lower reintervention rate at five years for roboticarm-assisted UKA when compared with a manual approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1088–1095

Objectives. This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group. Methods. A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results. From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1

Introduction. This study sought to evaluate the patient experience and short-term clinical outcomes associated with the hospital stay of patients who underwent robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These results were compared to a cohort of patients who underwent TKA without robotic assistance performed by the same surgeon. Methods. A cohort of consecutive patients undergoing primary TKA for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis by a single fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeon over a 39-month period was identified. Patients who underwent TKA during the year this surgeon transitioned his entire knee arthroplasty practice to robotic assistance were excluded to eliminate selection bias and control for the learning curve. A final population of 538 TKAs was identified. Of these, 314 underwent TKA without robotic assistance and 224 underwent robotic arm-assisted TKA. All patients received the same prosthesis and post-operative pain protocol. Patient demographic characteristics and short-term clinical data were analyzed. Results. Robotic arm-assisted TKA was associated with shorter length of stay (2.3 versus 2.6 days, p< 0.001), a 50% reduction in morphine milligram equivalent utilization (from 213 to 105, p< 0.001), decreased visual analog scale pain score on post-op day 1 and 2 (p< 0.001), and a mean increase in procedure time of 8.2 minutes (p=0.08). There were no post-operative infections in either cohort. Additionally, there were no significant differences in rates of manipulation under anesthesia, emergency department visits, readmissions, or return to the operating room. Conclusions. This analysis corroborates existing literature suggesting that robotic arm-assisted TKA can be correlated with improved short-term clinical outcomes. This study reports on a single surgeon's experience with regard to analgesic requirements, length of stay, pain scores, and procedure time following a complete transition to robotic arm-assisted TKA. These results underscore the importance of continued evaluation of clinical outcomes as robotic arthroplasty technology continues to grow. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

The objective of this study was to compare differences in alignment following robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA) and conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This was a prospective, randomised controlled trial of 70 patients. 39 TKAs were implanted manually, as per standard protocol at our institution, and 31 Bi-UKA patients simultaneously received fixed-bearing medial and lateral UKAs, implanted using robotic arm-assistance. Preoperative and 3-month postoperative CT scans were analysed to determine hip knee ankle angle (HKAA), medial distal femoral angle (MDFA), and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA). Analysis was repeated for 10 patients by a second rater to validate measurement reliability by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Mean change in HKAA towards neutral was 2.7° in TKA patients and 2.3° in Bi-UKA patients (P=0.6). Mean change in MDFA was 2.5° for TKA and 1.0° for Bi-UKA (P<0.01). Mean change in MPTA was 3.7° for TKA and 0.8° for Bi-UKA (P<0.01). Mean postoperative MDFA and MPTA for TKAs were 89.8° and 89.6° respectively, indicating orientation of femoral and tibial components perpendicular to the mechanical axis. Mean postoperative MDFA and MPTA for Bi-UKAs were 91.0° and 86.9° respectively, indicating a more oblique joint line orientation. Inter-rater agreement was excellent (ICC>0.99). Early functional activities, according to the new Knee Society Scoring System, favoured Bi-UKAs (P<0.05). Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing Bi-UKA better maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal plane and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared to a mechanically aligned TKA. This has been achieved without significantly altering overall HKAA

Aims

This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA).

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty, particularly for low volume surgeons. The recent introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems has allowed for increased accuracy, however new systems typically have learning curves. The objective of this study was to determine the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system for UKA.

Methods A total of 152 consecutive robotic-arm assisted primary medial UKA were performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2021. Operative times, implant positioning, reoperations and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS; Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5D, and Forgotten Joint Score) were recorded.

There was a learning curve of 11 cases with the system that was associated with increased operative time (13 minutes, p<0.01) and improved insert sizing over time (p=0.03). There was no difference in implant survival (98.2%) between learning and proficiency phases (p = 0.15), and no difference in survivorship between ‘high’ and ‘low’ usage surgeons (p = 0.23) at 36 months. There were no differences in PROMS related to the learning curve. This suggested that the learning curve did not lead to early adverse effects in this patient cohort.

The introduction of a robotic-arm assisted UKA system led to learning curves for operative time and implant sizing, but there was no effect on patient outcomes at early follow- up. The short learning curve was independent of UKA usage and indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons.

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to compare total and rate of caloric energy expenditure between conventional and robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between a high volume “veteran” surgeon (HV) and a lower volume, less experienced surgeon (LV).

In-hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition following arthroplasty could act as surrogate measures for improvement in patient pathways, and have major cost saving implications for healthcare providers. With the ever-growing adoption of robotic technology in arthroplasty, we wished to evaluate its impact on LOS. The objectives of this study were to compare LOS and discharge disposition following robotic-arm assisted (RO THA) versus conventional technique Total Hip Arthroplasty (CO THA).

This large-scale, single institution study included patients of any age undergoing primary THA (N = 1,732) for any cause between May 2019 and January 2023. Data extracted included patient demographics, LOS, need for Post Anaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) admission, anaesthesia type, readmission within 30 days and discharge dispositions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were also employed to identify factors and patient characteristics related to delayed discharge.

The median LOS in the RO THA group was 54 hours (34, 78) versus 60 (51, 100) in the CO THA group, p<0.001. Discharge disposition was comparable between the two groups. In the multivariate model, age, need for PACU admission, ASA score > 2, female gender, general anaesthesia and utilisation of the conventional technique were significantly associated with LOS > 2 days.

Our study showed that robotic-arm assistance was associated with a shorter LOS in patients undergoing primary THA and no difference in discharge destination. Our results suggest that robotic-arm assistance could be advantageous in partly addressing the upsurge of hip arthroplasty procedures and the concomitant health care burden; however, this needs to be corroborated by long-term cost effectiveness analyses and data from randomised controlled studies.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine if better outcomes occur with use of robotic-arm assistance by comparing consecutive series of non-robotic assisted (NR-TKA) and robotic-arm assisted (NR-TKA) total knee arthroplasties with the same implant.

While total knee arthroplasty has demonstrated clinical success, final bone cut and final component alignment can be critical for achieving a desired overall limb alignment. This cadaver study investigated whether robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) allows for accurate bone cuts and component position to plan compared to manual technique. Six cadaveric specimens (12 knees) were prepared by an experienced user of manual total knee arthroplasty (MTKA), who was inexperienced in RATKA. For each cadaveric pair, a RATKA was prepared on the right leg and a MTKA was prepared on the left leg. Final bone cuts and final component position to plan were measured relative to fiducials, and mean and standard deviations were compared.

Measurements of final bone cut error for each cut show that RATKA had greater accuracy and precision to plan for femoral anterior internal/external (0.8±0.5° vs. 2.7±1.9°) and flexion/extension* (0.5±0.4° vs. 4.3±2.3°), anterior chamfer varus/valgus* (0.5±0.1° vs. 4.1±2.2°) and flexion/extension (0.3±0.2° vs. 1.9±1.0°), distal varus/valgus (0.5±0.3° vs. 2.5±1.6°) and flexion/extension (0.8±0.5° vs. 1.1±1.1°), posterior chamfer varus/valgus* (1.3±0.4° vs. 2.8±2.0°) and flexion/extension (0.8±0.5° vs. 1.4±1.6°), posterior internal/external* (1.1±0.6° vs. 2.8±1.6°) and flexion/extension (0.7±0.6° vs. 3.7±4.0°), and tibial varus/valgus* (0.6±0.3° vs. 1.3±0.7°) rotations, compared to MTKA, respectively, (where * indicates a significant difference between the two operative methods based on 2- Variances testing, with α at 0.05). Measurements of final component position error show that RATKA had greater accuracy and precision to plan for femoral varus/valgus* (0.6±0.3° vs. 3.0±1.4°), flexion/extension* (0.6±0.5° vs. 3.0±2.1°), internal/external (0.8±0.5° vs. 2.6±1.6°), and tibial varus/valgus (0.7±0.4° vs. 1.1±0.8°) than the MTKA control, respectively.

In general, RATKA demonstrated greater accuracy and precision of bone cuts and component placement to plan, compared to MTKA in this cadaveric study. For further confirmation, RATKA accuracy of component placement should be investigated in a clinical setting.

Accurate cup placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the challenges due to distinctive bone deformity. Robotic-arm assisted system have been developed to improve the accuracy of implant placement. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic-arm assisted (Robo-THA), CT-based navigated (Navi-THA), and manual (M-THA) cup position and orientation in THA for DDH.

A total of 285 patients (335 hips) including 202 M-THAs, 45 Navi-THAs, and 88 Robo-THA were analyzed. The choice of procedure followed the patient's preferences. Horizontal and vertical center of rotation (HCOR and VCOR) were measured for cup position, and radiographic inclination (RI) and anteversion (RA) were measured for cup orientation. The propensity score-matching was performed among three groups to compare the absolute error from the preoperative target position and angle.

Navi-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors than M-THA in RI (3.6° and 5.4°) and RA (3.8° and 6.0°), however, there were no significant differences between them in HCOR (2.5 mm and 3.0 mm) or VCOR (2.2 mm and 2.6 mm). In contrast, Robo-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup position than both M-THA and Navi-THA (HCOR: 1.7 mm and 2.9 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.6 mm and 2.5 mm vs. Navi-THA, VCOR:1.7 mm and 2.4 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.4 mm and 2.2 mm vs. Navi-THA). Robo-THA also showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup orientation than both M-THA and Navi-THA (RI: 1.4° and 5.7°, vs. M-THA, 1.5° and 3.6°, vs. Navi-THA, RA: 1.9° and 5.8° vs. M-THA, 2.1° and 3.8° vs. Navi-THA).

Robotic-arm assisted system showed more accurate cup position and orientation compared to manual and CT-based navigation in THA for DDH. CT-based navigation increased the accuracy of cup orientation compared to manual procedures, but not cup position.

Background

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) patients with knee partial thickness cartilage loss have inferior functional performance compared to those with full thickness loss. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate on the association between postoperative patients' joint awareness and satisfaction and preoperative radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) Ahlbäck grade in subjects undergoing robotic arm-assisted UKA.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery.

Robotic assisted surgery aims to reduce surgical errors in implant positioning and better restore native hip biomechanics compared to conventional techniques for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual THA versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, cup inclination, cup version, and leg-length correction.

This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the minimally-invasive posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recoded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. Patients in both treatment groups were well-matched for age, gender, body mass index, laterality of surgery, and ASA scores.

Interclass correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84 – 0.95) for intra-observer agreement and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.94) for inter-observer agreement in all study outcomes. Robotic THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native horizontal (p<0.001) and vertical (p<0.001) centres of rotation, and improved preservation of the patient's native combined offset (P<0.001) compared to conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup within the combined safe zones of inclination and anteversion described by Lewinnek et al (p=0.02) and Callanan et al (p=0.01) compared to conventional THA (figures 1–2). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p=0.10).

Robotic-arm assisted THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native centre of rotation, better preservation of the combined offset, and more precise acetabular cup positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared to conventional manual THA.

Robotic-arm assisted THA enables improved preservation of native hip biomechanics compared to conventional manual THA.

For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly: fsh@fareshaddad.net

Aims. Traditionally, acetabular component insertion during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is visually assisted in the posterior approach and fluoroscopically assisted in the anterior approach. The present study examined the accuracy of a new surgeon during anterior (NSA) and posterior (NSP) THA using robotic arm-assisted technology compared to two experienced surgeons using traditional methods. Methods. Prospectively collected data was reviewed for 120 patients at two institutions. Data were collected on the first 30 anterior approach and the first 30 posterior approach surgeries performed by a newly graduated arthroplasty surgeon (all using robotic arm-assisted technology) and was compared to standard THA by an experienced anterior (SSA) and posterior surgeon (SSP). Acetabular component inclination, version, and leg length were calculated postoperatively and differences calculated based on postoperative film measurement. Results. Demographic data were similar between groups with the exception of BMI being lower in the NSA group (27.98 vs 25.2; p = 0.005). Operating time and total time in operating room (TTOR) was lower in the SSA (p < 0.001) and TTOR was higher in the NSP group (p = 0.014). Planned versus postoperative leg length discrepancy were similar among both anterior and posterior surgeries (p > 0.104). Planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were similar among the NSA and SSA (p > 0.425), whereas planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were lower in the NSP (p < 0.001). Outliers > 10 mm from planned leg length were present in one case of the SSP and NSP, with none in the anterior groups. There were no outliers > 10° in anterior or posterior for abduction in all surgeons. The SSP had six outliers > 10° in anteversion while the NSP had none (p = 0.004); the SSA had no outliers for anteversion while the NSA had one (p = 0.500). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted technology allowed a newly trained surgeon to produce similarly accurate results and outcomes as experienced surgeons in anterior and posterior hip arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):365–370

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively. Methods. A per protocol analysis of 76 patients, 43 of whom underwent TKA and 34 of whom underwent bi-UKA, was performed from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diaries kept by the patients recorded pain, function, and the use of analgesics daily throughout the first week and weekly between the second and sixth weeks. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, and at three months and one year postoperatively. Data were also compared longitudinally and a subgroup analysis was conducted, stratified by preoperative PROM status. Results. Both operations were shown to offer comparable outcomes, with no significant differences between the groups across all timepoints and outcome measures. Both groups also had similarly low rates of complications. Subgroup analysis for preoperative psychological state, activity levels, and BMI showed no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA offered similar early clinical outcomes and rates of complications to a mechanically aligned TKA, both in the immediate postoperative period and up to one year following surgery. Further work is required to identify which patients with osteoarthritis of the knee will derive benefit from a cruciate-sparing bi-UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1561–1570

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with an accelerated recovery, improved functional outcomes, and retention of anatomical knee kinematics when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA). UKA is not universally employed by all surgeons as there is a higher revision risk when compared to mTKA. Robotic arm-assisted (ra) UKA enables the surgeon to position the prosthesis more accurately when compared to manual UKA, and is associated with improved functional outcomes and a lower early revision risk. Non-randomized data suggests that, when compared to mTKA, raUKA has a clinically meaningful greater functional benefit. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of raUKA compared to mTKA for individuals with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. The total versus robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (TRAKER) trial is a patient- and assessor-blinded, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary knee arthroplasty for primary medial compartment OA at a single NHS hospital (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290818). Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:2 basis to either raUKA or mTKA, respectively. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) six months after surgery. Secondary outcomes measured at three, six, and 12 months include the OKS, Forgotten Joint Score, patient expectations, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and EQ-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction, range of motion, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and financial costs. Cost-effectiveness will be measured over a ten-year time span. A total of 159 patients will be randomized (n = 53 raUKA vs n = 106 mTKA) to obtain 80% power to detect a five-point difference in OKS between the groups six months after surgery. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of raUKA compared to mTKA in patients with isolated medial compartment OA. This will inform future National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on primary knee arthroplasty in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):164–177

Introduction. Dislocation is a major cause of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) early failure and is highly influenced by surgical approach and component positioning. Robotic assisted arthroplasty has been developed to improve component positioning and therefore reduce post-operative complications. The purpose of this study was to assess dislocation rate in robotic total hip arthroplasty performed with three different surgical approaches. Methods. All patients undergoing Robotic Arm-Assisted THA at three centers between 2014 and 2019 were included for assessment. After exclusion, 1059 patients were considered; an anterior approach was performed in 323 patients (Center 2), lateral approach in 394 patients (Center 1 and Center 2) and posterior approach in 394 patients (Center 1 and Center 3). Episodes of THA dislocation at 6 months of follow up were recorded. Stem anteversion, Cup anteversion, Cup inclination and Combined Anteversion were collected with the use of the integrated navigation system. Cumulative incidence (CI), incidence rate (IR) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated with a confidence interval of 95%. Results. Three cases of dislocation (2 posterior approach, 1 anterior approach) were recorded, with a dislocation rate of 0.28% and an IR of 0.14%. Placement of cup in Lewinnek safe zone rate was 82.2% for posterior approach, 82.0% for lateral approach and 95.4% for anterior approach. Placement in the Combined Version safe zone rate was 98.0% for posterior approach, 73.0% for lateral approach and 47.1% for anterior approach. Despite the difference, dislocation IR was 0.30% for anterior approach, 0.34% for posterior approach and 0% for lateral approach. Conclusion. Robotic assisted technique is associated with low dislocation risk, especially in posterior approach. The Combined version technique appears to be a reliable way to reduce dislocation risk in the posterior lateral approach, but does not appear to be essential for lateral and anterior approaches

Robotic arm-assisted total knee replacement is performed as a semi-active system in which haptic guidance is used to precisely position and align components. This is based on pre-operative planning based on CT imaging and can be modified as needed throughout the procedure. This technology, as shown with unicompartmental arthroplasty, is more accurate than conventional and even computer navigated instrumentation and will decrease variability. The knee can be planned to a neutral mechanical alignment. Intra-operatively, the computer will demonstrate compartment gap measurements to assist with soft tissue balancing. Alternatively, limb and component alignment can be accurately adjusted several degrees off the neutral axis to balance the knee and avoid or minimise soft tissue releases. This allows a more constitutional alignment within the alignment parameters accepted by the surgeon. This technique was utilised commonly in the first 60 robotic total knee replacements performed. We will now have the ability to collect accurate component positioning, alignment, and soft tissue balance data that can be correlated to outcomes of total knee replacements