header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

a prospective cohort study

Download PDF



The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA.

Patients and Methods

This prospective single-surgeon cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based UKAs compared with 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted UKAs for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Patients undergoing conventional UKA and robotic-arm assisted UKA were well-matched for baseline characteristics including a mean age of 65.5 years (sd 6.8) vs 64.1 years (sd 8.7), (p = 0.31); a mean body mass index of 27.2 kg.m2 (sd 2.7) vs 28.1 kg.m2 (sd 4.5), (p = 0.25); and gender (27 males: 33 females vs 26 males: 34 females, p = 0.85). Surrogate measures of the learning curve were prospectively collected. These included operative times, the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire to assess preoperative stress levels amongst the surgical team, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications.


Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time (p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels (p < 0.001). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (p = 0.52), posterior condylar offset ratio (p = 0.71), posterior tibial slope (p = 0.68), native joint line preservation (p = 0.55), and postoperative limb alignment (p = 0.65). Robotic-arm assisted UKA improved accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional jig-based UKA.


Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time and surgical team confidence levels but no learning curve for accuracy of implant positioning.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1033–42.

Correspondence should be sent to B. Kayani; email:

For access options please click here