Early Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Robotic-arm-assisted versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objective: A robotic system was recently introduced to improve prosthetic alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to determine whether robotic-arm-assisted TKA improves clinical and radiological outcomes when compared to conventional TKA.

Methods: One hundred and thirty patients who underwent primary TKA were enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled trial, which was conducted at three hospitals. Five patients were lost to follow-up 6 weeks after surgery. Therefore, 125 participants (63 in the intervention group and 62 in the control group) remained in the final analysis. The primary outcome was the rate at which the mechanical axis of the femur deviated by less than 3° from the mechanical axis of the tibia. This was evaluated by full-length weight-bearing X-rays of the lower limb 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operation times, 6-week postoperative functional outcomes evaluated by the American Knee Society score (KSS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), short form-36 (SF-36) health survey results, and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results: At 6 weeks postoperatively, we found that the rate of radiographic inliers was significantly higher in the intervention group (78.7% vs 51.6%; p = 0.00; 95% confidence interval, 10.9% to 43.2%). The operation was significantly longer in the intervention group than in the control group (119.5 vs 85.0 min; p = 0.00). There were no significant differences in the 6-week postoperative functional outcomes, SF-36, AEs, and SAEs between the two groups. There were no AEs or SAEs that were determined to be “positively related” to the robotic system.

Conclusion: Robotic-arm-assisted TKA is safe and effective, as demonstrated in this trial.

Keywords

Clinical outcome / Radiological outcome / Robotic-arm-assisted / Total knee arthroplasty

References

[1] Yue L, Berman J. What is osteoarthritis? JAMA. 2022; 327: 1300.

[2] Jang S, Lee K, Ju JH. Recent updates of diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment on osteoarthritis of the knee. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 2619.

[3] Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2007; 89: 893–900.

[4] Quinn RH, Murray JN, Pezold R, Sevarino KS. Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26: e191–e193.

[5] Tian G, Wang L, Liu L, Zhang Y, Zuo L, Li J. Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: an up-to-date meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg. 2022; 30: 10225536221125952.

[6] Luan Y, Wang H, Zhang M, Li J, Zhang N, Liu B, et al. Comparison of navigation systems for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2023; 10: 1112147.

[7] Rivière C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E, Aframian A, Asare K, Harris S, et al. Mechanical alignment technique for TKA: are there intrinsic technical limitations? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 103: 1057–1067.

[8] Kim SM, Park YS, Ha CW, Lim SJ, Moon YW. Robotic-arm-assisted implantation improves the precision of component position in minimally invasive TKA. Orthopedics. 2012; 35: e1334–e1339.

[9] Lei K, Liu L, Chen X, Feng Q, Yang L, Guo L. 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: 721–733.

[10] Thiengwittayaporn S, Uthaitas P, Senwiruch C, Hongku N, Tunyasuwanakul R. Imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the radiological alignment with a short learning curve: a randomized controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2021; 45: 2851–2858.

[11] Booth RE, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Robotics in hip and knee arthroplasty: real innovation or marketing Ruse. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 2197–2198.

[12] Ren Y, Cao S, Wu J, Weng X, Feng B. Efficacy and reliability of active robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J. 2019; 95: 125–133.

[13] Kamath J, Danda RS, Jayasheelan N, Singh R. An innovative method of assessing the mechanical Axis deviation in the lower limb in standing position. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10: RC11–RC13.

[14] Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1991; 73: 709–714.

[15] Bilbao A, Martín-Fernández J, García-Pérez L, Arenaza JC, Ariza-Cardiel G, Ramallo-Fariña Y, et al. Mapping WOMAC onto the EQ-5D-5L utility index in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Value Health. 2020; 23: 379–387.

[16] Yang HY, Seon JK, Shin YJ, Lim HA, Song EK. Robotic Total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate-retaining implant: a 10-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Surg. 2017; 9: 169–176.

[17] Bollars P, Boeckxstaens A, Mievis J, Kalaai S, Schotanus MGM, Janssen D. Preliminary experience with an image-free handheld robot for total knee arthroplasty: 77 cases compared with a matched control group. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020; 30: 723–729.

[18] Song EK, Seon JK, Park SJ, Jung WB, Park HW, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19: 1069–1076.

[19] Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 1054–1059.

[20] Collins K, Agius PA, Fraval A, Petterwood J. Initial experience with the NAVIO robotic-assisted Total knee replacement-coronal alignment accuracy and the learning curve. J Knee Surg. 2022; 35: 1295–1300.

[21] Stulberg BN, Zadzilka JD, Kreuzer S, Kissin YD, Liebelt R, Long WJ, et al. Safe and effective use of active robotics for TKA: early results of a multicenter study. J Orthop. 2021; 26: 119–125.

[22] Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Mechanical, anatomical, and kinematic Axis in TKA: concepts and practical applications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2014; 7: 89–95.

[23] Liow MH, Xia Z, Wong MK, Tay KJ, Yeo SJ, Chin PL. Robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the joint line and mechanical axis. A prospective randomised study. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 2373–2377.

[24] Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 118–126.

[25] Vaidya NV, Deshpande AN, Panjwani T, Patil R, Jaysingani T, Patil P. Robotic-assisted TKA leads to a better prosthesis alignment and a better joint line restoration as compared to conventional TKA: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022; 30: 621–626.

[26] Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 132–138.

[27] Jenny JY, Clemens U, Kohler S, Kiefer H, Konermann W, Miehlke RK. Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case-control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 832–839.

[28] Kim SJ, MacDonald M, Hernandez J, Wixson RL. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: improved coronal alignment. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 123–131.

[29] Zorman D, Etuin P, Jennart H, Scipioni D, Devos S. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: comparative results in a preliminary series of 72 cases. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005; 71: 696–702.

[30] Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Lüring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2004; 86: 682–687.

[31] Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, Banzer D, Zink A. Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2003; 85: 830–835.

[32] Skowroński J, Bielecki M, Hermanowicz K, Skowroński R. The radiological outcomes of total knee arthroplasty using computer assisted navigation ORTHOPILOT. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2005; 70: 5–8.

[33] Siddiqi A, Horan T, Molloy RM, Bloomfield MR, Patel PD, Piuzzi NS. A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design. EFORT Open Rev. 2021; 6: 252–269.

[34] Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Onochie E, Al-Jabri T, Haddad FS. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4: 611–617.

[35] Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted Total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based Total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 2496–2501.

[36] Tay ML, Carter M, Zeng N, Walker ML, Young SW. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of 16 cases and increased operative time of 12 min. ANZ J Surg. 2022; 92: 2974–2979.

[37] Bensa A, Sangiorgio A, Deabate L, Illuminati A, Pompa B, Filardo G. Robotic-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better clinical and radiological outcomes when compared to conventional TKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023; 31: 4680–4691.

[38] Zhang J, Ndou WS, Ng N, Gaston P, Simpson PM, 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: 2677–2695.

[39] Chen Z, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Palmer M, Coppolecchia A, Harder B, Mont MA, et al. Time-based learning curve for robotic-assisted Total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Knee Surg. 2023; 36: 873–877.

[40] Agarwal N, To K, McDonnell S, Khan W. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted Total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 3393–3409.e3392.

[41] Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ. The minimal clinically important difference for knee society clinical rating system after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 3354–3359.

[42] Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gonzalez-Parreño S, Martinez-Mendez D, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA. Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for knee society scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28: 1473–1478.

[43] Maredupaka S, Meshram P, Chatte M, Kim WH, Kim TK. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020; 32: 19.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.