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

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).

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.

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

The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of component positioning and incidence of peri-operative and 90-day post-operative complications following robotic arm-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). Three groups of patients were analyzed for this study: those that underwent conventional THA performed by Surgeon 1, conventional THA performed by Surgeon 2, or robotic arm-assisted THA performed by Surgeon 2. All patients underwent primary uncemented THA via a posterior approach. Patient characteristics, intra-operative data, and 90-day post-operative complications were collected. Post-operative standing pelvic radiographs were utilized to measure acetabular position and to identify post-operative complications. Acetabular component position measurements revealed substantially less variation in both inclination and anteversion in the Surgeon 2 – Robotic group. Nine patients had intra-operative cables placed for intra-operative calcar fracture in the Surgeon 1 group compared to one patient and three patients in Surgeon 2 – Robotic and Surgeon 2 – Traditional groups, respectively. Nine instances of femoral stems subsidence were identified in the Surgeon 1 group compared to one patient in Surgeon 2 – Traditional. There were four instances of dislocation in the Surgeon 1 group compared to one in the Surgeon 2 – Robotic group. Robotic arm-assisted THA decreases the variation in acetabular component positioning compared to conventional THA. However, the benefit of this is unclear as there is little difference in dislocation rate. This study may demonstrate additional value in CT-based implant planning as this cohort had the lowest incidence of femoral component complications