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

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

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. 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

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

The aim of this study was to perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (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

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.

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery. Methods. A total of 76 patients (34 bi-UKA and 42 TKA patients) were analyzed in a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Flat ground shod gait analysis was performed preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Knee flexion moment was calculated from motion capture markers and force plates. The same setup determined proprioception outcomes during a joint position sense test and one-leg standing. Surgery allocation, surgeon, and secondary outcomes were analyzed for prediction of the primary outcome from a binary regression model. Results. Both interventions were shown to be effective treatment options, with no significant differences shown between interventions for the primary outcome of this study (18/35 (51.4%) biphasic TKA patients vs 20/31 (64.5%) biphasic bi-UKA patients; p = 0.558). All outcomes were compared to an age-matched, healthy cohort that outperformed both groups, indicating residual deficits exists following surgery. Logistic regression analysis of primary outcome with secondary outcomes indicated that the most significant predictor of postoperative biphasic knee moments was preoperative knee moment profile and trochlear degradation (Outerbridge) (R. 2. = 0.381; p = 0.002, p = 0.046). A separate regression of alignment against primary outcome indicated significant bi-UKA femoral and tibial axial alignment (R. 2. = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R. 2. = 0.252; p = 0.016). The bi-UKA group showed a significant increased ability in the proprioceptive joint position test, but no difference was found in more dynamic testing of proprioception. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted bi-UKA demonstrated equivalence to TKA in achieving a biphasic gait pattern after surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Both treatments are successful at improving gait, but both leave the patients with a functional limitation that is not present in healthy age-matched controls. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;103-B(4):433–443

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