Vol 9, No 2 (2024)
Editorial
Published online: 2024-06-28

open access

Page views 140
Article views/downloads 75
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Robotic assistance in total knee arthroplasty

Medical Research Journal 2024;9(2):125-129.

Abstract

Introduction: Total knee arthroplasty is acknowledged as a gold standard for treating degenerative knee joint diseases, and optimal implant positioning is crucial for successful outcomes. Robotic-assisted TKA emerges as a promising solution for enhancing precision in implant positioning, despite potential drawbacks such as increased surgical duration and associated costs. Various robotic systems, including open, closed, passive, semi-active, and active types, are available on the market, such as ROBODOC®, MAKO®, ROSA®, and NAVIO® each one with certain features. Objectives: The primary objectives of this study are to comprehensively analyze the learning curve, shortterm and long-term clinical outcomes, and prospects associated with robotic assistance in TKA. Results: The learning curve associated with robotic TKA shows the gradual reduction in operation time as surgeons gain experience. Studies underline the importance of surgeon familiarity and experience in optimizing the benefits of robotic assistance. Long-term outcomes obtained through follow-up studies, indicate improved precision in maintaining mechanical axis and alignment of components. Comparative studies between manual and robotic-assisted TKA reveal enhanced compartment balancing and improved patient satisfaction with the latter. The pros of robotic assistance are increased precision, reduced complications, and improved patient satisfaction. Cons include higher maintenance costs and longer operation times during the learning period. Conclusions: Robotic assistance in TKA offers substantial benefits in terms of implant positioning accuracy and patient outcomes. The learning curve is seen as a temporary challenge that diminishes with surgeon experience. Despite concerns about increased costs and potential complications, the long-term advantages may outweigh these issues. Continued research and evaluation are required to refine techniques, enhance efficiency, and make these advancements accessible to a broader population.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Keating, S. J. Renaissance robotics: Novel applications of multipurpose robotic arms spanning design fabrication, utility, and art, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2012.
  2. George E, Brand T, LaPorta A, et al. Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2018; 22(4): e2018.00039.
  3. Antonios J, Korber S, Sivasundaram L, et al. Trends in computer navigation and robotic assistance for total knee arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis of patient and hospital factors. Arthroplasty Today. 2019; 5(1): 88–95.
  4. Brinkman J, Christopher Z, Moore M, et al. Patient interest in robotic total joint arthroplasty is exponential: a 10-year google trends analysis. Arthroplasty Today. 2022; 15: 13–18.
  5. Boddu S, Moore M, Rodgers B, et al. A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most influential studies on robotic arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today. 2023; 22: 101153.
  6. Li C, Jiang N, Wang L, et al. Clinical application of robotic orthopedic surgery: a bibliometric study. .
  7. Khan M, Osman K, Green G, et al. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(1_Supple_A): 105–112.
  8. Kraus K, Dilley J, Ziemba-Davis M, et al. Procedure duration, time under anesthesia, and readmissions in direct anterior and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37(12): 2387–2393.
  9. Yu F, Li L, Teng H, et al. Robots in orthopedic surgery. Annals of Joint. 2018; 3: 15–15.
  10. Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, et al. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. The Knee. 2002; 9(3): 173–180.
  11. Kayani B, Haddad F. Robotic total knee arthroplasty. Bone & Joint Research. 2019; 8(10): 438–442.
  12. Parratte S, Price A, Jeys L, et al. Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(11): 2799–2803.
  13. Lee Y, Kim G, Lee C, et al. No difference in clinical outcomes and survivorship for robotic, navigational, and conventional primary total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Clin Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(1): 82.
  14. Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi N, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2017; 31(01): 017–021.
  15. Agarwal N, To K, McDonnell S, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35(11): 3393–3409.e2.
  16. Gunaratne R, Pratt D, Banda J, et al. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(12): 3854–3860.
  17. Marchand R, Sodhi N, Khlopas A, et al. Patient satisfaction outcomes after robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a short-term evaluation. J Knee Surg. 2017; 30(09): 849–853.
  18. Smith A, Eccles C, Bhimani S, et al. Improved patient satisfaction following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019; 34(07): 730–738.
  19. Blum C, Lepkowsky E, Hussein A, et al. Patient expectations and satisfaction in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a prospective two-year outcome study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 141(12): 2155–2164.
  20. Nogalo C, Meena A, Abermann E, et al. Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022; 31(3): 736–750.
  21. Park S, Lee C. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(7): 1054–1059.
  22. Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak J, et al. 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(8): 2496–2501.
  23. Hampp E, Sodhi N, Scholl L, et al. Less iatrogenic soft tissue damage utilizing robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach: a blinded assessment. EPiC Series in Health Sciences. .
  24. Kim YH, Yoon SH, Park JW. Does robotic-assisted TKA result in better outcome scores or long-term survivorship than conventional TKA? A randomized, controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020; 478(2): 266–275.
  25. Bohl D, Ondeck N, Darrith B, et al. Impact of operative time on adverse events following primary total joint arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(7): 2256–2262.e4.
  26. Khan H, Dhillon K, Mahapatra P, et al. Blood loss and transfusion risk in robotic‐assisted knee arthroplasty: A retrospective analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2021; 17(6).
  27. Thomas T, Goh G, Nguyen M, et al. Pin-Related complications in computer navigated and robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37(11): 2291–2307.e2.
  28. Beldame J, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P. Pin track induced fractures around computer-assisted TKA. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010; 96(3): 249–255.
  29. Desai S, Kunes J, Held M, et al. A comparison of pin site complications between large and small pin diameters in robotic‐assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop. 2023; 10(1).
  30. Owens R, Swank M. Low incidence of postoperative complications due to pin placement in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(7): 1096–1098.
  31. Mancino F, Jones CW, Benazzo F, et al. Where are we now and what are we hoping to achieve with robotic total knee arthroplasty? A critical analysis of the current knowledge and future perspectives. Orthop Res Rev. 2022; 14: 339–349.
  32. Kayani B, Haddad F. Robotic total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2019; 8(10): 438–442.
  33. Gamal A, Moschovas M, Jaber A, et al. Clinical applications of robotic surgery platforms: a comprehensive review. J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1).
  34. Held M, Grosso M, Gazgalis A, et al. Improved compartment balancing using robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today. 2021; 7: 130–134.
  35. Yang H, Seon J, Shin Y, et al. Robotic total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate-retaining implant: a 10-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Surg. 2017; 9(2): 169.