Aims. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. Methods. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primary TKA. In all study patients, the following data were recorded: operating time, polyethylene liner size, change in haemoglobin concentration (g/dl), length of inpatient stay, postoperative complications, and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment. All procedures were performed using the principles of functional alignment. At most recent follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected. Mean follow-up time was 21 months (6 to 36). Results. There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to mean change in haemoglobin concentration (p = 0.477), length of stay (LOS, p = 0.172), mean polyethylene thickness (p = 0.065), or postoperative complication rates (p = 0.295). At the most recent follow-up, the primary robotic arm-assisted TKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA to TKA group (44.6 (SD 2.7) vs 42.3 (SD 2.5); p = 0.004) but there was no difference in the overall ROM (p = 0.056) or FJS between the two treatment groups (86.1 (SD 9.6) vs 84.1 (4.9); p = 0.439). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary robotic TKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):680–687

Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results. There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion. The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020

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

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 was to assess whether robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had a greater early knee-specific outcome when compared to manual TKA (mTKA). Secondary aims were to assess whether rTKA was associated with improved expectation fulfilment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared to mTKA.

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.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):114–120

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

Introduction. The objectives of this study were to compare the systemic inflammatory reaction, localised thermal response and macroscopic soft tissue injury outcomes in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (conventional TKA) versus robotic total knee arthroplasty (robotic TKA). Methods. This prospective randomised controlled trial included 30 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing conventional TKA versus robotic TKA. Predefined serum markers of inflammation and localised knee temperature were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 hours, day 1, day 2, day 7, and day 28 following TKA. Blinded observers used the Macroscopic Soft Tissue Injury (MASTI) classification system to grade intraoperative periarticular soft tissue injury and bone trauma. Plain radiographs were used to assess the accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment and implant positioning in both treatment groups. Results. Conventional TKA and robotic TKA had comparable changes in the postoperative systemic inflammatory reaction and localised thermal response at 6 hours, day 1, day 2 and day 28 after surgery. Robotic TKA had reduced levels of interleukin-6 (p<0.001), tumour necrosis factor-α (p=0.021), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p=0.001), C-reactive protein (p=0.004), and creatine kinase (p=0.004) at day 7 after surgery compared to conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with improved intraoperative preservation of the periarticular soft tissue envelope (p<0.001) and reduced bone trauma (p=0.015) compared to conventional TKA. Robotic TKA improved accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment (p<0.001), femoral component positioning (<0.001), and tibial component positioning (<0.001) compared to conventional TKA. Conclusion. Robotic TKA was associated with a transient reduction in the early (day 7) postoperative inflammatory response but there was no difference in the immediate (<48 hours) or late (day 28) postoperative systemic inflammatory responses compared to conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with decreased iatrogenic periarticular soft tissue injury, reduced bone trauma and improved accuracy of implant positioning compared to conventional TKA

The MAKO Robotic arm is a haptic robotic system that can be used to optimise performance during total hip arthroplasty (THA). We present the outcome of the first 40 robotic cases performed in an NHS foundation trust along with the technique of performing robotic THA in our unit. Forty consecutive patients undergoing robotic THA (rTHA) were compared to a case matched group of patients undergoing manual THA (m-THA). 2:1 blinded case matching was performed for age, sex, implants used (Trident uncemented socket and cemented Exeter stem, Stryker Mahwah, NJ, US) and surgeon grade. Comparisons were made for radiological positioning of implants, including leg length assessment, and patient reported functional outcome (PROMS). Pre- and post-operative radiographs were independently analysed by 2 authors. All patients underwent THA for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. No significant difference between groups was identified for post-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) although pre-operatively a significantly higher LLD was highlighted on the MAKO group, likely due to patient selection. Significantly lower post-operative socket version was identified in the MAKO cohort although no difference in post-operative cup inclination was noted. However, there was significantly larger variance in post-op LLD (p=0.024), cup version (p=0.004) and inclination (p=0.05) between groups indicating r-THA was significantly less variable (Levene's test for homogeneity of variance). There was no significant difference in the number of cases outside of Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for inclination (p=0.469), however, there were significantly more cases outside Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for version (12.5% vs 40.3%, p=0.002) in the m-THA group. We report the commencement of performance of MAKO robotic THA in an NHS institution. No problems with surgery were reported during our learning curve. Robotic THA cases had less variability in terms of implant positioning suggesting that the MAKO robot allows more accurate, less variable implant positioning with fewer outliers. Longer term follow-up of more cases is needed to identify whether this improved implant positioning has an effect on outcomes, but the initial results seem promising

Background. Stability of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is dependent on correct and precise rotation of the femoral component. Multiple differing surgical techniques are currently utilized to perform total knee arthroplasty. Accurate implant position have been cited as the most important factors of successful TKA. There are two techniques of achieving soft gap balancing in TKA; a measured resection technique and a balanced gap technique. Debate still exists on the choice of surgical technique to achieve the optimal soft tissue balance with opinions divided between the measured resection technique and the gap balance technique. In the measured resection technique, the bone resection depends on size of the prosthesis and is referenced to fixed anatomical landmarks. This technique however may have accompanying problems in imbalanced patients. Prediction of gap balancing technique, tries to overcome these fallacies. Our aim in this study was twofold: 1) To describe our methodology of ROBOTIC TKA using prediction of gap balancing technique. 2) To analyze the clinico-radiological outcome our technique comparison of meseaured resection ROBOTIC TKA after 1year. Methods. Patients that underwent primary TKA using a robotic system were included for this study. Only patients with a diagnosis of primary degenerative osteoarthritis with varus deformity and flexion deformity of were included in this study. Patients with valgus deformity, secondary arthritis, inflammatory arthritis, and severe varus/flexion deformity were excluded. Three hundred ten patients (319 knees) who underwent ROBOTIC TKA using measured resection technique from 2004 – 2009. Two hundred twenty (212 knees) who underwent ROBOTIC TKA using prediction of gap balancing technique from 2010 – 2012. Clinical outcomes including KS and WOMAC scores, and ranges of motion and radiological outcomes including mechanical axis, prosthesis alignments, flexion varus/valgus stabilities were compared after 1year. Results. Leg mechanical axes were significantly different at follow-up 1year versus preoperative values, the mean axes in the Robotic-TKA with measured resection technique and Robotic-TKA with prediction of gap balancing technique improved from 9.6±5.0° of varus to 0.5±1.9° of varus, and from 10.6±5.5° to 0.4±1.3° of varus (p<0.001), respectively. However, no significant intergroup differences were found between mechanical axis or coronal alignments of femoral or tibial prostheses (pï¼ï¿½0.05). Mean varus laxities at 90° of knee flexion in measured resection and gap prediction technique group were 6.4° and 5.3°, respectively, and valgus laxities were 6.2 and 5.2 degrees, respectively, with statistical significance (p=0.045 and 0.032, respectively). KS knee and function scores and WOMAC scores were significantly improved at follow-up 1year (pï¼ï¿½0.05). However, no significant difference was found between the Robotic-TKA with measured resection technique and Robotic-TKA with prediction of gap balancing technique for any clinical outcome parameter at follow-up 1year (pï¼ï¿½0.05). Conclusions. Robotic assisted TKA using measured resection or gap prediction technique provide adequate and practically identical levels of flexion stability at 90° of knee flexion with accurate leg and prosthesis alignment. But, Robotic TKA using measured resection technique have less than flexion stability compared with gap prediction technique with statistical significance after follow-up 1year

The introduction of robotics for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) into the operating theatre is often associated with a learning curve and is potentially associated with additional complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the learning curve of robotic-assisted (RA) TKA within a multi-surgeon team. This prospective cohort study included 83 consecutive conventional jig-based TKAs compared with 53 RA TKAs using the Robotic Surgical Assistant (ROSA) system (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) for knee osteoarthritis performed by three high-volume (> 100 TKA per year) orthopaedic surgeons. Baseline characteristics including age, BMI, sex and pre-operative Kellgren-Lawrence grade were well-matched between the conventional and RA TKA groups. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to assess learning curves for operative times for each surgeon. Peri-operative and delayed complications were reviewed. The CUSUM analysis for operative time demonstrated an inflexion point after 5, 6 and 15 cases for each of the three surgeons, or 8.7 cases on average. There were no significant differences (p = 0.53) in operative times between the RA TKA learning (before inflexion point) and proficiency (after inflexion point) phases. Similarly, the operative times of the RA TKA group did not differ significantly (p = 0.92) from the conventional TKA group. There was no discernible learning curve for the accuracy of component planning using the RA TKA system. The average length of post-operative follow-up was 21.3 ± 9.0 months. There was no significant difference (p > 0.99) in post-operative complication rates between the groups. The introduction of the RA TKA system was associated with a learning curve for operative time of 8.7 cases. Operative times between the RA TKA and conventional TKA group were similar. The short learning curve implies this RA TKA system can be adopted relatively quickly into a surgical team with minimal risks to patients

Introduction. Robotics have been applied to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve surgical precision in component placement and joint function restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prosthetic component alignment in robotic arm-assisted (RA)-TKA performed with functional alignment and intraoperative fine-tuning, aiming for symmetric medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. It was hypothesized that functionally aligned RA-TKA the femoral and tibial cuts would be performed in line with the preoperative joint line orientation. Methods. Between September 2018 and January 2020, 81 RA cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilized (PS) TKAs were performed at a single center. Preoperative radiographs were obtained, and measures were performed according to Paley's. Preoperatively, cuts were planned based on radiographic epiphyseal anatomies and respecting ±3° boundaries from neutral coronal alignment. Intraoperatively, the tibial and femoral cuts were modified based on the individual soft tissue-guided fine-tuning, aiming for symmetric medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. Robotic data were recorded. Results. A total of 56 RA-TKAs performed on varus knees were taken into account. On average, the tibial component was placed at 1.9° varus (SD 0.7) and 3.3° (SD 1.0) in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The average femoral component alignment, based on the soft tissue tensioning with spoons, resulted as follows: 0.7° varus (SD 1.7) in the coronal plane and 1.8° (SD 2.1) of external rotation relative to surgical transepicondylar axis in the transverse plane. A statistically significant linear direct relationship was demonstrated between radiographic epiphyseal femoral and tibial coronal alignment and femoral (r=0.3, p<0.05) and tibial (r=0.3, p<0.01) coronal cuts, resepctively. Conclusion. Functionally aligned RA-TKA performed in varus knees, aiming for ligaments’ preservation and balanced flexion/extension gaps, provided joint line respecting femoral and tibial cuts on the coronal plane

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

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

Robotic and navigated TKA procedures have been introduced to improve component placement precision for the purpose of improving implant survivorship and other clinical outcomes. Although numerous studies have shown enhanced precision in placing components, adoption of technology-assistance (TA) for TKA has been relatively slow. One reason for this has been the difficulty in demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of implementing TA-TKA systems and assessing their impact on revision rates. In this study, we aimed to use a simulation approach to answer the following questions: (1) Can we determine the distribution of likely reductions in TKA revision rates attributable to TA-TKA in an average US patient population? And, (2) What reduction in TKA revision rates are required to achieve economic neutrality?. In a previous study, we developed a method for creating large sets of simulated TKA patient populations with distributions of patient-specific factors (age at index surgery, sex, BMI) and one surgeon-controlled factor (coronal alignment) drawn from registry data and published literature. Effect sizes of each factor on implant survival was modeled using large clinical studies. For 10,000 simulated TKA patients, we simulated 20,000 TKA surgeries, evenly split between groups representing coronal alignment precisions reported for manual (±3°) and TA-TKA (±1.0°), calculating the patient-specific survival curve for each group. Extending our previous study, we incorporated the probability of each patient's expected survival into our model using publicly available actuarial data. This allowed us to calculate a patient-specific estimate of the Reduction in Lifetime Risk of Revision (RLRR) for each simulated patient. Our analysis showed that 90% of patients will achieve an RLRRof 1.5% or less in an average US TKA population. We then conducted a simplified economic analysis with the goal of determining the net cost of using TA-TKA per case when factoring in future savings by TKA revision rates. We assumed an average cost of revision surgery to be $75,000 as reported by Delanois (2017) and an average added cost incurred by TA-TKA to be $6,000 per case as reported by Antonis (2019). We estimate the net cost per TA-TKA case (CNet) to be the added cost per TA-TKA intervention (CInt), less the cost of revision surgery (CRev) multiplied by the estimated RLRR: CNet = CInt - CRev∗RLRR. We find that, under these assumptions, use of TA-TKA increases expected costs for all patients with an RLRR of under 8%. Based on these results, it appears that it would not be cost-effective to use TA-TKA on more than a small fraction of the typical US TKA patient population if the goal is to reduce overall costs through reducing revision risks. However, we note that this simulation does not consider other possible reported benefits of TA-TKA surgery, such as improved functional and pain outcome scores which may justify its use on other grounds. Alternative costs incurred by TA-TKA will be evaluated in a future study. To reach economic neutrality, TA-TKA systems either must reduce the added cost per intervention or increase RLRR by better addressing the root causes of revision

In this study we compare survivorship and patient reported outcome measures in robotically assisted versus conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). This paper investigates the hypothesis that implant survival and PROMS following THAs performed with robotic assistance were not different to outcomes following conventional THAs. Data included all patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis between 19 April 2016 and 31 December 2020. Analysis of PROMS outcomes was restricted to those who had completed PROMS data preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. There were 157,647 procedures, including 3567 robotically assisted procedures, available for comparison of revision rates. 4557 procedures, including 130 robotically assisted procedures, had PROMS data available. The revision rate of primary THA performed with robotic assistance was not statistically different from THA performed by conventional methods (4 year cumulative percent revision 3.1% v 2.7%; HR = 1.05, p=0.67). The Oxford Hip Score, VAS for pain and the EQ-VAS score for overall health showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. The EQ-5D Utility Score showed an improved score (median score 1 v 0.88; OR = 1.58, p=0.007) for the robotically assisted group compared to the conventional group. Robotic assisted THA was not associated with significant improvement in early revision or joint-specific PROMs. The findings may have been biased, in either direction, by unmeasured patient, surgeon, hospital and prosthesis factors. The findings (including the difference in health-related quality of life) may have also been influenced by lack of blinding. Future research should include methods to minimise these biases

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

Introduction:. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) aims to improve component positioning and mechanical alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). Robotic cutting-guides have been integrated into CAS systems with the intent to improve bone-cutting precision and reduce navigation time by precisely automating the placement of the cutting-guide. The objectives of this study were to compare the intra-operative efficiency and accuracy of a robotic-assisted TKA procedure to a conventional computer-assisted TKA procedure where fixed sequential cutting-blocks are navigated free-hand. Methods:. This was a retrospective study comparing two distinct cohorts: the control group consisted of patients undergoing TKA with conventional CAS (Stryker Universal Knee Navigation v3.1, Stryker Orthopaedics, MI) from May 2006 to September 2007; the study group consisted of patients undergoing TKA with a robotic cutting-guide (Apex Robotic Technology, ART, OMNIlife Science, MA) from October 2010 to May 2012. Exclusion of patients with preexisting hardware in the joint or an absence of navigation data resulted in a total of 29 patients in the control group and 52 patients in the study group. Both groups were similar with respect to BMI, age, gender, and pre-operative alignment. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon at a single institution. The navigation log files were analyzed to determine the total navigation time for each case, which was defined as the time from the start of the acquisition of the hip center to the end of the final alignment analysis for both systems. The intraoperative final mechanical axis was also recorded. The tourniquet time (time of inflation prior to incision to deflation immediately after cement hardening) and hospitalization length were compared. Linear regression analysis was performed using R statistical software v2.12.1. Results:. Navigation times were on average 9.0 minutes shorter in the study group compared to the control group (95% CI: [4.0, 14.1], p = 0.0006). Average absolute intraoperative alignment was 0.5 degrees closer to neutral in the robotic group compared to the conventional CAS group (95% CI: [0.08, 0.95], p = 0.020). Tourniquet time was not significantly different between the two systems (0.2 min, 95% CI [−5.4, 5.9], p = 0.926). Patients in the study group were discharged 0.6 days earlier than patients in the control group (95% CI: [0.1, 1.1], p = 0.0122). Discussions:. Our results suggest that use of a robotic cutting-guide can decrease the time taken to navigate a TKA procedure in comparison to conventional free-hand navigation of multiple fixed cutting blocks, which is supported by previous studies [1]. However, this time savings did not translate into a reduction in the tourniquet time. We believe this may be due in part to the two different types of bone cement that were used during the distinct study periods, where the hardening time for the cement in the study group was estimated to be approximately 5 minutes longer. Conclusions:. In one surgeon's hands, use of a robotic cutting-guide decreased navigation time, improved intraoperative final alignment, and decreased hospitalization length when compared to conventional computer-assisted navigation in TKA