Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. The study analyzed a consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA between September 2018 and December 2019. Of these, 30 patients had DDH and were classified according to the Crowe type. Acetabular component alignment and 3D positions were measured using pre- and postoperative CT data. The absolute differences of cup alignment and 3D position were compared between DDH and non-DDH patients. Moreover, these differences were analyzed in relation to the severity of DDH. The discrepancy of leg length and combined offset compared with contralateral hip were measured. Results. The mean values of absolute differences (postoperative CT-preoperative plan) were 1.7° (standard deviation (SD) 2.0) (inclination) and 2.5° (SD 2.1°) (anteversion) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between non-DDH and DDH patients. The mean absolute differences for 3D cup position were 1.1 mm (SD 1.0) (coronal plane) and 1.2 mm (SD 2.1) (axial plane) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between two groups. No significant difference was found either in cup alignment between postoperative CT and navigation record after cup screws or in the severity of DDH. Excellent restoration of leg length and combined offset were achieved in both groups. Conclusion. We demonstrated that robotic-assisted THA may achieve precise cup positioning in DDH patients, and may be useful in those with severe DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(10):629–638

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has benefits for patients with appropriate indications. However, UKA has a higher risk of revision, particularly for low-usage surgeons. The introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems may allow for improved outcomes but is also associated with a learning curve. We aimed to characterise the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system (MAKO) for UKA in terms of operative time, limb alignment, component sizing, and patient outcomes. Operative times, pre- and post-surgical limb alignments, and component sizing were prospectively recorded for consecutive cases of primary medial UKA between 2017 and 2021 (n=152, 5 surgeons). Patient outcomes were captured with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and re-operation events up to two years post-UKA. A Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) method was used to estimate learning curves and to distinguish between learning and proficiency phases. Introduction of the system had a learning curve of 11 cases. There was increased operative time of 13 minutes between learning and proficiency phases (learning 98 mins vs. proficiency 85 mins; p<0.001), associated with navigation registration and bone preparation/cutting. A learning curve was also found with polyethylene insert sizing (p=0.03). No difference in patient outcomes between the two phases were detected for patient-reported outcome measures, implant survival (both phases 98%; NS) or re-operation (learning 100% vs. proficiency: 96%; NS). Implant survival and re-operation rates did not differ between low and high usage surgeons (cut-off of 12 UKAs per year). Introduction of the robotic-arm assisted system for UKA led to increased operative times for navigation registration and bone preparation, but no differences were detected in terms of component placement or patient outcomes regardless of usage. The short learning curve regardless of UKA usage indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Aims. The objectives of this study were to compare postoperative pain, analgesia requirements, inpatient functional rehabilitation, time to hospital discharge, and complications in patients undergoing conventional jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus robotic-arm assisted UKA. Patients and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 146 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary UKA performed by a single surgeon. This included 73 consecutive patients undergoing conventional jig-based mobile bearing UKA, followed by 73 consecutive patients receiving robotic-arm assisted fixed bearing UKA. All surgical procedures were performed using the standard medial parapatellar approach for UKA, and all patients underwent the same postoperative rehabilitation programme. Postoperative pain scores on the numerical rating scale and opiate analgesia consumption were recorded until discharge. Time to attainment of predefined functional rehabilitation outcomes, hospital discharge, and postoperative complications were recorded by independent observers. Results. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with reduced postoperative pain (p < 0.001), decreased opiate analgesia requirements (p < 0.001), shorter time to straight leg raise (p < 0.001), decreased number of physiotherapy sessions (p < 0.001), and increased maximum knee flexion at discharge (p < 0.001) compared with conventional jig-based UKA. Mean time to hospital discharge was reduced in robotic UKA compared with conventional UKA (42.5 hours (. sd 5.9). vs 71.1 hours (. sd. 14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two groups within 90 days’ follow-up. Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with decreased postoperative pain, reduced opiate analgesia requirements, improved early functional rehabilitation, and shorter time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based UKA

Aims. The purpose of this multicentre observational study was to investigate the association between intraoperative component positioning and soft-tissue balancing on short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Patients and Methods. Between 2013 and 2016, 363 patients (395 knees) underwent robotic-arm assisted UKAs at two centres. Pre- and postoperatively, patients were administered Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Results were stratified as “good” and “bad” if KOOS/FJS-12 were more than or equal to 80. Intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data relative to CT-based components placement were collected and classified. Postoperative complications were recorded. Results. Following exclusions and losses to follow-up, 334 medial robotic-arm assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 30.0 months (8.0 to 54.9). None of the measured parameters were associated with overall KOOS outcome. Correlations were described between specific KOOS subscales and intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data, and between FJS-12 and femoral component sagittal alignment. Three UKAs were revised, resulting in 99.0% survival at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.9 to 100.0). Conclusion. Although little correlation was found between intraoperative robotic data and overall clinical outcome, surgeons should consider information regarding 3D component placement and soft-tissue balancing to improve patient satisfaction. Reproducible and precise placement of components has been confirmed as essential for satisfactory clinical outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:435–442

Introduction. Primary robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) yields more accurate and reproducible acetabular cup placement, nonetheless, data is scarce in terms of outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to report on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in a large group of patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA. The authors hypothesized that (1) patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted primary THA would achieve favorable and significant improvement in PROMs, (2) an accurate and reproducible acetabular cup placement with respect to the defined SafeZones would be obtained, and (3) a low rate of THA dislocation would be observed. Methods. Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed between April 2012 to May 2017. Primary THA using Mako Robotic-Arm [Mako Surgical Corp. (Stryker), Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA] with minimum two-year follow-up for the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) were included. Exclusion criteria were: bodymass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m2, age < 21-year old, worker's compensation, or unwilling to participate. Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and patient satisfaction were obtained. Intraoperative measurements for leg-length, global offset, acetabular inclination and version were documented. Results. 501 hips were included (57.29% females), follow-up was 43.99 ± 15.59 months. Average age was 58.70 ± 9.41 years, and the BMI was 28.41 ± 4.55 kg/m2. The group reported HHS of 90.87 ± 13.45, FJS-12 of 79.97 ± 25.87, VAS of 1.20 ± 2.06, and patient satisfaction of 8.85 ± 2.08. Intraoperative values for acetabular inclination and version were 40.0° ± 2.2 ° and 20.5° ± 2.4° respectively. Revision due to instability was 0.2%. Conclusions. Patients who received primary robotic-arm assisted THA reported excellent results at 44-month follow-up for multiple PROMs. Consistency in acetabular cup placement accuracy was achieved in regard to the Lewinnek and Callanan safe-zones

Introduction. Robotic technology has been applied to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in order to improve surgical precision in prosthetic component placement, restore knee anatomic surfaces, and provide a more physiologic ligament tensioning throughout the knee range of motion. Recent literature has demonstrated high reliability of robotic-arm assisted UKA in component placement and executing a soft-tissue tensioning plan, with excellent short-term survivorship. Few studies have investigated survivorship and patients' satisfaction at longer follow-ups. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine the survivorship, clinical results and patients' satisfaction of robotic-arm assisted UKAs at a mid-term follow-up, with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Methods. The present retrospective study includes 252 patients (260 knees) who underwent robotic-arm assisted fixed bearing metal backed UKAs at a single centre between April 2011 and July 2013. The mean age at surgery was 66.2 years (SD 8.6). Post-operatively, patients were administered the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS) and asked about their satisfaction level after knee surgery (grade from 1 to 5). Post-operative complications were recorded. Failure mechanisms, revisions and reoperations were also assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated, considering reoperation for all causes and revision as the events of interest. Results. A total of 223 patients (231 robotic-arm assisted UKAs) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 5.8 years post-operatively (88.5% follow-up rate, min. 60 months, max. 87 months). In 219 cases, a medial robotic-arm assisted UKA was implanted, in 12 cases a lateral implant was performed. Five medial robotic-arm assisted UKAs were revised, resulting in a survivorship of 98% (C.I. 96.0%–99.1%). One case underwent revision for prosthetic joint infection, one for tibial aseptic loosening, one for post-traumatic tibial plateau fracture, and two for unexplained pain. No lateral robotic-arm assisted UKAs were revised, resulting in a survivorship of 100%. On average, the FJS and the satisfaction level resulted 75.6 (SD 26.1) and 4.2 (SD 1.0) in medial UKAs, and 81.7 (SD 15.3) and 4.4 (SD 0.8) in lateral UKAs, respectively. In medial UKAs 83% of the examined cohort reported good/excellent FJS outcomes, while 92% of the lateral UKA patients had good/excellent FJS results. In medial UKAs, male patients resulted to have better FJS (p<0.01) and higher satisfaction level (p<0.03) compared to female patients, while no outcome differences were reported in patients with BMI>30 and among different age groups. Given the small number of lateral UKAs included in the present patients' cohort, no statistical analysis was performed on this group. Conclusion. In the present study, survivorship and clinical outcomes of a large cohort of 223 patients undergoing medial and lateral robotic-arm assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean of 5.8 years of follow-up. The overall survivorship was found to be 98%, with unexplained knee pain as the most common reason for UKA revision. The present study shows that robotic-arm assisted UKA patients had lower revision rates for aseptic loosening and osteoarthritis progression compared to conventional UKA at mid-term follow-up, as reported in the literature. The good post-operative clinical scores highlight the efficacy of robotic-arm assisted UKA in restoring knee function and relieving pain. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims. The objective of this study was to compare early postoperative functional outcomes and time to hospital discharge between conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and robotic-arm assisted TKA. Patients and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 40 consecutive patients undergoing conventional jig-based TKA followed by 40 consecutive patients receiving robotic-arm assisted TKA. All surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon using the medial parapatellar approach with identical implant designs and standardized postoperative inpatient rehabilitation. Inpatient functional outcomes and time to hospital discharge were collected in all study patients. Results. There were no systematic differences in baseline characteristics between the conventional jig-based TKA and robotic-arm assisted TKA treatment groups with respect to age (p = 0.32), gender (p = 0.50), body mass index (p = 0.17), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.88), and preoperative haemoglobin level (p = 0.82). Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with reduced postoperative pain (p < 0.001), decreased analgesia requirements (p < 0.001), decreased reduction in postoperative haemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), shorter time to straight leg raise (p < 0.001), decreased number of physiotherapy sessions (p < 0.001) and improved maximum knee flexion at discharge (p < 0.001) compared with conventional jig-based TKA. Median time to hospital discharge in robotic-arm assisted TKA was 77 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 74 to 81) compared with 105 hours (IQR 98 to 126) in conventional jig-based TKA (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with decreased pain, improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:930–7

Outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA) has remained controversial and challenging. Traditional hospital stays following total joint arthroplasty were substantial and resulted in increased rates of morbidity, significant pain, and severe restriction in mobility. Advancements in the surgical approach, anesthetic regimens, and the initiation of rapid rehabilitation protocols have had an impact on the length of recovery following elective THA. Still, very few studies have specifically outlined outpatient hip arthroplasty and, thus far, none have addressed the use of robotic-arm navigation in outpatient THA. This article describes in detail the technique used to perform outpatient THA with the use of robotic-arm assistance. We believe that outpatient THA using robotic-arm assistance in combination with tissue-preserving surgery, multi-modal pain and nausea management, early rehabilitation, and stringent patient selection yields a suitable alternative to inpatient joint replacement

Aims. Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. Methods. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey. Results. Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.0 to 10.8). Five-year survivorship of medial UKA (n = 802), lateral UKA (n = 171), and PFA/BiKA (n = 35/10) was 97.8%, 97.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. Component loosening and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were the most common reasons for revision. Mean KOOS scores after medial UKA, lateral UKA, and PFA/BiKA were 84.3 (SD 15.9), 85.6 (SD 14.3), and 78.2 (SD 14.2), respectively. The vast majority of the patients reported high satisfaction levels after RA PKA. Subgroup analyses suggested tibial component design, body mass index (BMI), and age affects RA PKA outcomes. Five-year survivorship was 98.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.2 to 99.5) for onlay medial UKA (n = 742) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.9 to 100) for onlay medial UKA in patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m. 2. (n = 479). Conclusion. This large single-surgeon study showed high mid-term survivorship, satisfaction levels, and functional outcomes in RA UKA using metal-backed tibial onlay components. In addition, favourable results were reported in RA PFA and BiKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):108–116

Background. Manually instrumented knee arthroplasty is associated with variability in implant and limb alignment and ligament balance. When malalignment, patellar maltracking, soft tissue impingement or ligament instability result, this can lead to decreased patient satisfaction and early failure. Robotic technology was introduced to improve surgical planning and execution. Haptic robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leverages three-dimensional planning, optical navigation, dynamic intraoperative assessment of soft tissue laxity, and guided bone preparation utilizing a power saw constrained within haptic boundaries by the robotic arm. This technology became clinically available for TKA in 2016. We report our early experience with adoption of this technique. Methods. A retrospective chart review compared data from the first 120 robotic-arm assisted TKAs performed December 2016 through July 2018 to the last 120 manually instrumented TKAs performed May 2015 to January 2017, prior to introduction of the robotic technique. Level of articular constraint selected, surgical time, complications, hemoglobin drop, length of stay and discharge disposition were collected from the hospital record. Knee Society Scores (KSS) and range of motion (were derived from office records of visits preoperatively and at 2-weeks, 7-weeks and 3-month post-op. Manipulations under anesthesia and any reoperations were recorded. Results. Less articular constraint was used to achieve balance in the robotic group, with a higher incidence of cruciate retaining retention (92% vs. 55%, p < 0.01) and a trend towards lower use of varus-valgus constrained articulations (5% vs. 11%, p = 0.068). Robotic surgery increased mean operative time by 22 minutes (p < 0.001). Operative time improved by 26 minutes from the first 10 robotic cases to the last 10 robotic cases. The robotic group had a lower hospital length of stay (2.7 vs. 3.4 days, p < 0.001). Discharge home was not significantly different between robotic and manual groups (89% vs. 83%, p = 0.2). Postoperative Knee Society scores were similar between groups at each postoperative time interval. Robotic-arm assisted TKA patients demonstrated lower mean flexion contracture at 2-weeks (1.8 vs. 3.3 degrees, p < 0.01), 7-weeks (1.0 vs. 1.8 degrees, p <0.01), and 3-months (0.6 vs 2.1 degrees, p = 0.02) post-surgery, but these differences were small. Mean flexion did not differ between groups at 3-month follow-up, but motion was achieved with a significantly lower rate of manipulation under anesthesia in the robotic group (4% vs 17%, p = 0.013). Conclusion. Preliminary findings demonstrate robotic-arm assisted TKA is safe and efficacious with outcomes comparable, if not superior, to that of manually instrumented TKA. Keywords. total knee arthroplasty, robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Robotic-arm assisted knee arthroplasty (rKA) has been associated with improved clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. There is a paucity of literature, however, addressing its cost effectiveness. In the context of an integrated health system with an insurance plan and single source comprehensive data warehouse for electronic health records and claims data, we present an evaluation of healthcare costs and utilization associated with manual knee arthroplasty (mKA) versus rKA. We also examine the influence of rKA technology on surgeons’ practice patterns. Methods. Practice patterns of KA were assessed 18 months before and after introduction of robotic technology in April 2018. For patients also insured through the system's health plan, inpatient costs (actual costs recorded by health system), 90-day postoperative costs (allowed amounts paid by insurance plan), and 90-day postoperative utilization (length of stay, home health care visits, rehabilitation visits) were compared between mKA and rKA patients, stratified by total (TKA) or unicompartmental (UKA) surgery. Linear regression modeling was used to compare outcomes between the two pairs of groups (mKA vs. rKA, for both UKA and TKA). Log-link function and gamma error distribution was used for costs. All analyses were done using SAS statistical software, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results. Overall KA volume increased 21%, from 532 cases in the pre-rKA period to 644 post-rKA introduction, with UKA surgeries increasing from 38 to 97 (155%). Of these KAs, 218 patients were insured through our system's health plan (38 rUKAs, 9 mUKAs, 91 rTKAs, and 80 mTKAs), allowing precise insurance claims analysis for postoperative utilization and cost. Patients with rKA had significantly lower mean home health costs (-90% difference for UKA, −79% difference for TKA, p<0.02) and home rehab costs (-64% difference for UKA, −73% difference for TKA, p≤0.007) than mKA patients. No significant differences were observed in outpatient rehab (visits or costs), total rehab costs, or length of stay. Mean total postoperative costs were significantly lower for rUKA than mUKA (-47% difference, p=0.02) but similar for TKA (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in total inpatient costs between MAKO and non-MAKO patients. Conclusion. Robotic-arm assisted KA can allow for increased UKA volume and potential for substantial cost savings over the total episode of care by reducing postoperative utilization and costs

Introduction. Robotics have been applied to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve surgical precision in components’ placement, providing a physiologic ligament tensioning throughout knee range of motion. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate femoral and tibial components’ positioning in robotic-assisted TKA after fine-tuning according to soft tissue tensioning, aiming symmetric and balanced medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. Materials and Methods. Forty-three consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA between November 2017 and November 2018 were included. Pre-operative radiographs were performed and measured according to Paley's. The tibial and femoral cuts were performed based on the individual intra-operative fine-tuning, checking for components’ size and placement, aiming symmetric medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. Cuts were adapted to radiographic epiphyseal anatomy and respecting ±2° boundaries from neutral coronal alignment. Robotic data were recorded, collecting information relative to medial and lateral gaps in flexion and extension. Results. Patients were divided based on the pre-operative coronal mechanical femoro-tibial angle (mFTA). Only knees with varus deformity (mFTA<178°), 29 cases, were taken into account. On average, the tibial component was placed at 1.2°±0.5 varus. Femoral component fine-tuning based on soft-tissues tensioning in extension and flexion determined the following alignments: 0.2°±1.2 varus on the coronal plane and 1.2°±2.2° external rotation with respect to the trans-epicondylar axis (TEA) as measured on the CT scan in the horizontal plane. The average gaps after femoral and tibial resections, resulted as follows: 19.5±0.8 mm on the medial side in extension, 20.0±0.9 mm on the lateral side in extension, 19.1±0.7 mm on the medial side in flexion and 19.5±0.7 mm on the lateral side in flexion. On average, the post-implant coronal alignment as reported by the robotic system resulted 2.0°±1.5 varus. Discussion. The proposed robotic-arm assisted TKA technique, aiming to preserve the integrity of the ligaments, provides balanced and symmetric gaps in flexion and extension and an anatomic femoral and tibial component's placement with post-implant coronal alignment within ±2° from neutral alignment

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to compare the postoperative systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (conventional TKA) versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (robotic TKA). Secondary aims were to compare the macroscopic soft tissue injury, femoral and tibial bone trauma, localized thermal response, and the accuracy of component positioning between the two treatment groups. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing conventional TKA versus robotic TKA. Predefined serum markers of inflammation and localized knee temperature were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at six 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 postioning of the components in both groups. Results. Patients undergoing conventional TKA and robotic TKA had comparable changes in the postoperative systemic inflammatory and localized thermal response at six hours, day 1, day 2, and day 28 after surgery. Robotic TKA had significantly reduced levels of interleukin-6 (p < 0.001), tumour necrosis factor-α (p = 0.021), ESR (p = 0.001), CRP (p = 0.004), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.007), and creatine kinase (p = 0.004) at day 7 after surgery compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with significantly improved preservation of the periarticular soft tissue envelope (p < 0.001), and reduced femoral (p = 0.012) and tibial (p = 0.023) bone trauma compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA significantly improved the accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment (p < 0.001), femoral component positioning (p < 0.001), and tibial component positioning (p < 0.001) compared with 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 response compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with decreased iatrogenic periarticular soft tissue injury, reduced femoral and tibial bone trauma, and improved accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):113–122

Introduction. Robotic-arm total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) was developed to potentially improve accuracy of bone cuts, component alignment, soft tissue balance, and patient outcomes. There is a paucity of data demonstrating that RTKA is superior to conventional total knee arthroplasty (CTKA) in terms of any of these metrics. This prospective comparative multicenter study was designed with these purposes in mind. Methods. Patients were enrolled between June 1st, 2016 and March 31st, 2018 in a prospective, non-randomized, open-label, multicenter, consecutive comparative cohort study comparing RTKA and CTKA. Only patients who satisfied the following inclusion criteria were included: body mass index (BMI) ≤ 40kg/m2, primary unilateral TKA procedure, at least 18 years of age, and no joint infection. The following data were collected for analysis:. Preoperative data on component size prediction from CT scans. Intraoperative data on bone resection levels and joint line maintenance. Functional activity scores, patient-reported symptoms, satisfaction and expectation scores using The New Knee Society Scoring System. Radiographic results, specifically coronal alignment. Results. For femoral components implanted, 82% were the exact size as predicted by the robotic-software and the remaining 18% were within 1 size (100% within 1 size). For tibial implants, 69% were the exact size of what the robotic-software predicted and 29% were within 1 size (98% within 1 size). RTKAs had significantly less distal lateral femoral resection (5.55 vs. 7.11 mm), distal medial femoral resection (6.89 vs. 7.97 mm), lateral tibial resection (7.76 vs. 8.54 mm), and medial tibial resection (4.11 vs. 5.56 mm, p<0.05) compared to CTKA. Joint line restoration was comparable between RTKA and CTKA, but required less tibial bone removal when using robotic techniques. Pre-operatively, all demographic, functional, symptom, satisfaction, and expectation measures were similar between treatment groups (all p<0.05, Tables 1–5). Those who underwent RTKA had significantly higher mean functional activity walking and standing score improvements from baseline to 4–6 weeks (1.4 vs. −1.2 points; p=0.019) and to 6 months (9.6 vs. 6.9 points; p=0.017) after surgery compared to CTKA. The mean overall functional activity score improvement from baseline to 1-year post-surgery was also higher for RTKA compared to CTKA (36.8 vs. 15.0 points; p=0.020). For all other parameters (standard activities, advanced activities, pain with walking, pain with stairs, satisfaction and expectation scores), score changes from baseline were not significantly different between groups, though many trended slightly higher for RTKA. Radiographic evaluation of RTKA demonstrated that varus deformity was corrected to neutral in 96% of cases and valgus deformity was corrected in 100%. Conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively evaluate outcomes of RTKA patients compared to CTKA. A number of positive early effects were seen with RTKA. This patient cohort will continue to be followed, and these findings may translate into longer-term patient reported outcomes improvement, longer component survivorship and cost savings. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

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.

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement when using robotic assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA).

INTRODUCTION

we have previously reported that bone preparation is quite precise and accurate relative to a preoperative plan when using a robotic arm assisted technique for UKA. However, in that same study, we found a large variation between intended and final tibial implant position, presumably occuring during cement curing. In this study, we reviewed a subsequent cohort of patients in which the tibial and femoral components were cemented individually with ongoing evaluation of tibial component position during cement curing.

Background:

Numerous studies have reported the importance of acetabular component positioning in decreasing dislocation rates, the risk of liner fractures, and bearing surface wear in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The goal of improving acetabular component positioning has led to the development of computer-assisted surgical (CAS) techniques, and several studies have demonstrated improved results when compared to conventional, freehand methods. Recently, a computed tomography (CT)-based robotic surgery system has been developed (MAKO™ Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopaedic System, MAKO Surgical Corp., Fort Lauderdale, FLA, USA), with promising improvements in component alignment and surgical precision. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in predicting the postoperative acetabular component position between the MAKO™ robotic navigation system and an imageless, CAS system (AchieveCAS, Smith and Nephew Inc., Memphis, TN, USA).

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