Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques employed, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) with manual TKA (mTKA) and the associated learning curve. Searches of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee” and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for RATKA and those comparing the component position accuracy, alignment and balancing techniques, functional outcomes, or complications with mTKA. There were 198 articles identified, following full text screening, 16 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and reported the learning curve of rTKA (n=5), component positioning accuracy (n=6), alignment and balancing techniques (n=7), functional outcomes (n=7), or complications (n=5). Two studies reported the learning curve using CUSUM analysis to establish an inflexion point for proficiency which ranged from 7 to 11 cases and there was no learning curve for component positioning accuracy. The meta-analysis showed a significantly lower difference between planned component position and implanted component position, and the spread was narrower for RATKA compared with the mTKA group (Femur coronal: mean 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.55, p<0.00001; Tibia coronal: mean 1.56, 95% CI 1.32–1.81, p<0.00001). Three studies reported using different alignment and balancing techniques between mTKA and RATKA, two studies used the same for both group and two studies did not state the methods used in their RATKA groups. RATKA resulted in better Knee Society Score compared to mTKA in the short-to-mid-term follow up (95%CI [− 1.23, − 0.51], p=0.004). There was no difference in arthrofibrosis, superficial and deep infection, wound dehiscence, or overall complication rates. RATKA demonstrated improved accuracy of component positioning and patient-reported outcomes. The learning curve of RATKA for operating time was between 7 and 11 cases. Future well-powered studies on RATKAs should report on the knee alignment and balancing techniques utilised to enable better comparisons on which techniques maximise patient outcomes.Level of evidence III.

Highlights

  • MethodsRobotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with improved accuracy of prosthesis implantation, and may improve outcomes and implant survival [1, 4, 15, 16]

  • As for posterior slope, it was 2.9 ± 1.59 for robotic-arm assisted TKA (RATKA) and 3.6 ± 2.51 for manual TKA (mTKA) (Fig. 3c). These findings showed that RATKA was more precise compared to mTKA

  • A forest plot of pooled reported complication data demonstrated that there was no difference in arthrofibrosis, infection or wound dehiscence rates, but there was a higher risk (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 2.94, p = 0.84; Fig. 5) for overall complication rate associated with mTKA compared to RATKA in short-term follow-up, but this was not significant

Read more

Summary

Methods

Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with improved accuracy of prosthesis implantation, and may improve outcomes and implant survival [1, 4, 15, 16]. Four recent meta-analysis have analysed the effects of robotic TKA on accuracy and functional outcomes when compared to mTKA, but most of the studies included were “fully active” systems [1, 7, 39, 43]. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques employed, patient-reported outcomes and complications of RATKA with mTKA and the associated learning curve. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles studying robotic total knee arthroplasty and reporting on functional outcomes or patient satisfaction or accuracy of component positioning or learning curve or complications. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK)

Results
43 RATKA vs 39 67 vs 66 mTKA
Year Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Findings
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call