Comparison of Alignment Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes between a CT-Based, Saw Cutting Robotic System and a CT-Free, Jig-guided Robotic System for Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

Objective: The different cutting mode of robot-assisted TKAs may influence the accuracy of alignment. The purpose of this study was to compare alignment accuracy and early clinical outcomes between a CT-based, saw cutting robotic system (MAKO) and a CT-free, jig-guided robotic system (ROSA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: A total of 20 MAKO TKAs and 20 ROSA TKAs from June 2021 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Differences in the postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and 3° outlier frequency of the HKA, LDFA, MPTA and PTS were studied at 3 months and 1 year of follow-up. The operative time and total blood loss (TBL) were compared between these two groups. Clinical outcomes at 1 year after surgery, including range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Knee Society Score-2011 (KSS-2011), were also compared between these two groups.

Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. There were no significant differences in the mean deviations of postoperative HKA, LDFA, MPTA or PTS between the two groups at 3 months or 1 year (all ps > 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the percentage of 3° outliers for HKA, LDFA, MPTA, or PTS between the two groups at 3-month or 1-year follow-up (all ps > 0.05). The mean operation time of MAKO was longer than that of ROSA (112.7 ± 12.8 min vs 94.8 ± 23.0 min, p = 0.001), but the mean TBL (1356.7 ± 648.5 mL vs 1384.5 ± 676.3 mL) and transfusion rate (15.0% vs 5.0%) were not significantly different between the two groups (all ps > 0.05). No significant differences were found in postoperative ROM, WOMAC score or KSS score at 1 year (all ps > 0.05).

Conclusion: The MAKO and ROSA had similar accuracy and precision in TKA alignment. The clinical outcomes at 1 year after surgery were also comparable.

Keywords

Alignment / Clinical outcomes / Robotic surgery / Total knee arthroplasty

References

[1] KlugA, Gramlich Y, RudertM, DreesP, Hoffmann R, WeißenbergerM, et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(10):3287–3298.

[2] KimYH, ParkJW, KimJS, Park SD. The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop. 2014;38(2):379–385.

[3] LongstaffLM, SloanK, StampN, Scaddan M, BeaverR. Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(4):570–578.

[4] MatsudaS, Kawahara S, OkazakiK, TashiroY, Iwamoto Y. Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Ortho pRelat Res. 2013;471(1):127–133.

[5] BourneRB, Chesworth BM, DavisAM, MahomedNN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):57–63.

[6] LeiK, LiuL, ChenX, Feng Q, YangL, GuoL. Navigation and robotics improved alignment compared with PSI and conventional instrument, while clinical outcomes were similar in TKA: a network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(2):721–733.

[7] ZhangJ, NdouWS, NgN, GastonP, SimpsonPM, Macpherson GJ, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(8):2677–2695.

[8] BataillerC, Hannouche D, BenazzoF, ParratteS. Concepts and techniques of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: the ROSA knee system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(12):2049–2058.

[9] JacofskyDJ, AllenM. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(10):2353–2363.

[10] GrossJB. Estimating allowable blood loss: corrected for dilution. Anesthesiology. 1983;58(3):277–280.

[11] AquiliA, Canè PP, FravisiniM, FarinelliL, Procaccini R, GiganteAP. Extramedullary femoral alignment system in total knee arthroplasty: accuracy in relation of severity and different types of varus. J Orthop. 2021;24:86–90.

[12] HamppEL, Chughtai M, SchollLY, SodhiN, Bhowmik-Stoker M, JacofskyD, et al. Robotic-arm assisted Total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(3):239–250.

[13] KhlopasA, Chughtai M, HamppEL, SchollLY, PrietoM, ChangTC, et al. Robotic-arm assisted Total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:441–446.

[14] SultanAA, SamuelLT, KhlopasA, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-StokerM, ChenA, et al. Robotic-arm assisted Total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the Insall-Salvati index compared to the manual technique; A Cohort-Matched Study. Surg Technol Int. 2019;34:409–413.

[15] ParratteS, PriceAJ, JeysLM, Jackson WF, ClarkeHD. Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for Total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2799–2803.

[16] SeidensteinA, Birmingham M, ForanJ, OgdenS. Better accuracy and reproducibility of a new robotically-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(3):859–866.

[17] RossiSMP, Sangaletti R, PerticariniL, TerragnoliF, Benazzo F. High accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(3):1153–1161.

[18] SiresJD, WilsonCJ. CT validation of intraoperative implant position and knee alignment as determined by the MAKO Total knee arthroplasty system. J Knee Surg. 2021;34(10):1133–1137.

[19] ShinC, Crovetti C, HuoE, LionbergerD. Unsatisfactory accuracy of recent robotic assisting system ROSA for total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop. 2022;9(1):82.

[20] BataillerC, Fernandez A, SwanJ, ServienE, HaddadFS, CataniF, et al. MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(11):3585–3598.

[21] BataillerC, Anderson MB, FlecherX, OllivierM, Parratte S. Is sequential bilateral robotic total knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? A matched comparative pilot study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(3):1599–1609.

[22] KenanidisE, Paparoidamis G, MilonakisN, PotoupnisM, Tsiridis E. Comparative outcomes between a new robotically assisted and a manual technique for total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: a prospective matched comparative cohort study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022;33:1231–1236.

[23] KayaniB, KonanS, HuqSS, Tahmassebi J, HaddadFS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(4):1132–1141.

[24] VanlommelL, NevenE, AndersonMB, Bruckers L, TruijenJ. The initial learning curve for the ROSA® knee system can be achieved in 6-11 cases for operative time and has similar 90-day complication rates with improved implant alignment compared to manual instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop. 2021;8(1):119.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.