Aims. The aim of this study was to report patient and clinical outcomes following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) at multiple institutions with a minimum two-year follow-up. Methods. This was a multicentre registry study from October 2016 to June 2021 that included 861 primary RA-TKA patients who completed at least one pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaire, including Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR), and pain out of 100 points. The mean age was 67 years (35 to 86), 452 were male (53%), mean BMI was 31.5 kg/m. 2. (19 to 58), and 553 (64%) cemented and 308 (36%) cementless implants. Results. There were significant improvements in PROMs over time between preoperative, one- to two-year, and > two-year follow-up, with a mean FJS of 17.5 (SD 18.2), 70.2 (SD 27.8), and 76.7 (SD 25.8; p < 0.001); mean KOOS JR of 51.6 (SD 11.5), 85.1 (SD 13.8), and 87.9 (SD 13.0; p < 0.001); and mean pain scores of 65.7 (SD 20.4), 13.0 (SD 19.1), and 11.3 (SD 19.9; p < 0.001), respectively. There were eight superficial infections (0.9%) and four revisions (0.5%). Conclusion. RA-TKA demonstrated consistent clinical results across multiple institutions with excellent PROMs that continued to improve over time. With the ability to achieve target alignment in the coronal, axial, and sagittal planes and provide intraoperative real-time data to obtain balanced gaps, RA-TKA demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and PROMs in this patient population. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):589–595

Background. Discrepancies in patient outcomes after total knee arthroplasty have encouraged the development of different treatment options including early preventive interventions. In addition, improvements in surgical techniques and instrumentation have increased the accuracy of the surgeries. In this case study, we review the first robotic-arm assisted modular tricompartmental knee arthroplasty in which bone and soft tissues are conserved by employing a precise planning and execution technique. Materials and Methods. A 63 year old Caucasian female with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 27 presented to the surgeon (SK) with knee pain and a varus mechanical alignment. The patient received modular tri-unicompartmental arthroplasty performed with robotic-arm assistance; (see figure 1 for post-op radiograph). Range of Motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively at 6, 16, and 23 months. At 6 months post-op an in-depth in vivo kinematic analysis was conducted by using a validated fluoroscopic assessment technique [1]. The patient simulated stair climbing, kneeling activity, and deep lunge while under single plane fluoroscopy. Three dimensional models were created from CT scans and were matched to 2D fluoroscopic images for kinematic assessment. Results. ROM, KSS, KOOS improved post-operatively, see Table 1. Patient displayed tibial internal rotation and screw home mechanism like that of normal knees, (Figure 2). Anterior-posterior translation of medial and lateral compartments was observed (Figure 3). The patient demonstrated a maximum flexion of 115 and 114.9 in kneeling and lunge activity, respectively. Tibial external rotation was seen in both kneeling and lunging, although rotation was greater during the lunge activity (3.1 versus 11.5 degrees). Both medial and lateral compartments showed posterior translation during these activities (Table 2). Conclusion. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes were achieved for this patient. This case report was the first case of robotically assisted, modular, ACL and PCL sparing tricompartmental arthroplasty. It was anticipated that preserving more soft tissues, particularly the ACL would contribute to improved kinematic function of the knee following arthroplasty, which was the primary differentiating factor between a bicompartmental design and a traditional tricompartmental knee design. The use of robotic techonlogy as described herein has not yet been approved by the FDA

Introduction. Cementless total knees were historically associated with early failure. These failures, likely associated with implant design, made cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) the “gold standard”. Manufacturers have introduced newer uncemented technologies that provide good initial stability and utilize a highly-porous substrates for bony in-growth. Outcome data on these implants has been limited. In addition, these implants typically have a price premium which makes them difficult to use in the setting of cost containment and in at risk 90-day bundles. Our purpose was to compare 90-day outcomes of a new uncemented implant with those of a comparable cemented implant from the same manufacturer. We hypothesized that the implants would have equivalent 90-day clinical and economic outcomes. Methods. Ninety-day clinical and economic outcomes for 252 patients with prospectively collected data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) database were reviewed. Ninety-day outcomes were compared between uncemented knees and an age-matched group of cemented knees (Triathlon cemented vs uncemented Triathalon-tritanium, Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Both cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs were included. MARCQI data: demographics, co-morbidities, length of stay, complications, emergency department visits, discharge disposition, and readmissions were reviewed. Financial data provided by the hospital's finance department was used for economic comparisons. Fischer's test was done to assess categorical data and a student's t-test was used to compare numerical data. Results. Uncemented knees had shorter length of stay (1.58 vs. 1.87, p<0.0001), were more frequently discharged home (90.48% vs. 68.75%; p<0.0001) and used less home care or extended care facilities (6.35% vs. 19.14%, p<0.0001; 2.78% vs. 11.72%, p=0.0001). More uncemented knees had “no complications”. Moreover, there were no reoperations in uncemented knees, compared to 19 reoperations in cemented knees most being manipulations (14 vs. 0, p=0.0028). Uncemented knees scored better than age matched counterparts Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (63.69 vs. 47.10, n=85 and 43, p<0.0001), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System T-physical and T-mental (44.12 vs. 39.45, n=95 and 59, p<0.0001; 51.84 vs 47.82, n=97 and 59, p=0.0018). Cemented cases were more expensive overall, the surgical costs were higher ($6806.43 vs. $5710.78 p<0.01) and the total hospital costs were higher ($8347.65 vs. $7016.11 p<0.01). The 90-day readmission and hospital outpatient costs were not significantly different between the designs. Conclusion. The use of a modern uncemented TKA implants has increased, but data on outcomes and the economic impact has been limited particularly in regard to 90-day at risk global periods. Our study suggests that patients receiving an new uncemented TKA have a shorter length of stay, higher rate of discharge to home, better patient reported outcome measures, fewer complications and fewer reoperations than an age-matched group of patients receiving a similar, cemented design during the 90-day global period. Importantly, the uncemented knees had $1,095 less surgical episode costs (p< 0.001) and a 90-day cost savings of over $1,300 (p< 0.001). Uncemented TKA, when utilizing modern technologies, is successful and economically viable for an at-risk bundle. The results of this study should alleviate fears increased cost, early failure, complications or poor outcomes with the use of a modern uncemented TKA