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

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.

There has been significant interest in day-case and rapid discharge pathways for unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Pathways to date have shown this to be a safe and feasible option; however, no studies to date have published results of rapid-discharge pathways using the NAVIO robotic system. To date there is no published experience with rapid discharge UKR patients using the NAVIO robotic system. We report an initial experience of 11 patients who have safely been discharged within 24 hours. With the primary goal of investigating factors that led to rapid discharge and a secondary goal of evaluating the safety of doing so.

All patients were discharged within 24 hours; there were no post-operative complications and no readmissions to hospital. The mean length of stay was 16.9 hours (SD=7.3), with most patients seen once on average by physiotherapy. Active range of motion at 6 weeks was 0.7o to 130.5 o, with all patients mobilising independently. The average 6-month post-operative Oxford Knee Score was 43.5 out of 48. There were no readmission or complications in any of our patients.

This initial feasibility study identified that patients could be safely discharged within 24 hours after UKR using the NAVIO robotic system. With growing uptake of robotic procedures, with longer operative durations than traditional procedures, it is essential to ensure a rapid discharge to reduce healthcare cost whilst ensuring that patients are discharged home in a safe manner.

Robotic assistance in knee arthroplasty has become increasingly popular due to improved accuracy of prosthetic implantation. However, literature on the mid-term outcomes is limited especially that of hand-held robotic-assisted devices. We present one of the longest follow-up series to date using this novel technology and discuss the learning curve for introducing robotic technology into our practice. The purpose of this single-surgeon study is to evaluate the survival, patient-reported outcomes and learning curve for handheld boundary-controlled robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (HBRUKAs) at our hospital. This retrospective study evaluates 100 cases (94 Medial, 6 Lateral) performed by a single surgeon between October 2012 and July 2018. 52% were males, mean age was 64.5y (range 47.3y-85.2y) and mean BMI was 31.3 (range 21.8–43). Both inlay (40%) and onlay (60%) designs were implanted. Patients were followed up routinely at 1 and 5 years with Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) recorded. The learning curve was determined by tourniquet times. At a mean follow-up of 4.3 years (range 1.6y–7.3y), survivorship was 97%. There were three revisions: One case of aseptic loosening (1.5y), one case of deep-infection (3.8y) and one case of contralateral compartment osteoarthritis progression (5y). Mean 5-year OKS was 39.8. A 14.3% reduction in mean tourniquet times between the first 25 cases (105.5minutes) and subsequent cases (90.4minutes) was seen. This single-surgeon study showed good survivorship and patient-reported outcomes for HBRUKAs at our hospital. A learning curve of approximately 25 cases was shown, with significant decreases in tourniquet times with respect to increased surgeon experience