Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(03): 239-250
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641729
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Demonstrated Greater Accuracy and Precision to Plan Compared with Manual Techniques

Emily L. Hampp
1   Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey
,
Morad Chughtai
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Laura Y. Scholl
1   Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey
,
Nipun Sodhi
3   Department of Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker
1   Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey
,
David J. Jacofsky
4   Department of Adult Reconstruction, The CORE Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
,
Michael A. Mont
3   Department of Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was partially funded by an educational grant from Stryker. Three of the authors are employed by Stryker (E.L.H., L.Y.S., and M.B-S.). Three of the authors are paid consultants for Stryker (D.J.J., M.A.M., and M.C.).
Further Information

Publication History

31 January 2018

25 February 2018

Publication Date:
01 May 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study determined if robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) allows for more accurate and precise bone cuts and component position to plan compared with manual total knee arthroplasty (MTKA). Specifically, we assessed the following: (1) final bone cuts, (2) final component position, and (3) a potential learning curve for RATKA. On six cadaver specimens (12 knees), a MTKA and RATKA were performed on the left and right knees, respectively. Bone-cut and final-component positioning errors relative to preoperative plans were compared. Median errors and standard deviations (SDs) in the sagittal, coronal, and axial planes were compared. Median values of the absolute deviation from plan defined the accuracy to plan. SDs described the precision to plan. RATKA bone cuts were as or more accurate to plan based on nominal median values in 11 out of 12 measurements. RATKA bone cuts were more precise to plan in 8 out of 12 measurements (p ≤ 0.05). RATKA final component positions were as or more accurate to plan based on median values in five out of five measurements. RATKA final component positions were more precise to plan in four out of five measurements (p ≤ 0.05). Stacked error results from all cuts and implant positions for each specimen in procedural order showed that RATKA error was less than MTKA error. Although this study analyzed a small number of cadaver specimens, there were clear differences that separated these two groups. When compared with MTKA, RATKA demonstrated more accurate and precise bone cuts and implant positioning to plan.

Keywords

robotic - total knee arthroplasty - accuracy - precision - alignment
 

  • References

  • 1 National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 2016 13th Annual Report. Available at: http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2013th%20Annual%20Report%202016.pdf
    PubMed
  • 2 Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Pierce TP, Beaver WB, Issa K, Mont MA. Long-term survivorship and clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2164-2166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cho Y, Lee MC. Rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Asia Pacific J Sport Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol 2014; 1 (04) 113-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977; 59 (01) 77-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jinnah AH, Multani A, Jinnah RH, Plate JF. Robotic unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a commentary on a recently published level 1 study. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (Suppl. 01) S40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ, Valenzuela RG, Teitge RA. Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (03) 463-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R. Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (04) 570-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rosso F, Cottino U, Olivero M, Bonasia DE, Bruzzone M, Rossi R. Medium-term follow-up of 149 mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties and evaluation of prognostic factors influencing outcomes. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018; 26 (01) 2309499017754092
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Anand S, Harrison JWK, Buch KA. Extramedullary or intramedullary tibial alignment guides: a randomised, prospective trial of radiological alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (07) 1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (07) (Suppl. 03) 132-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bardakos N, Cil A, Thompson B, Stocks G. Mechanical axis cannot be restored in total knee arthroplasty with a fixed valgus resection angle: a radiographic study. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) (Suppl. 02) 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (08) 1097-1106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (17) 1588-1596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harman MK, Banks SA, Kirschner S, Lützner J. Prosthesis alignment affects axial rotation motion after total knee replacement: a prospective in vivo study combining computed tomography and fluoroscopic evaluations. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13 (01) 206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barrack RL, Schrader T, Bertot AJ, Wolfe MW, Myers L. Component rotation and anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 46-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C. A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (02) 236-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 144-153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Manzotti A, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. Computer-assisted alignment system for tibial component placement in total knee replacement: a radiological study. Chir Organi Mov 2008; 91 (01) 7-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ensini A, Catani F, Leardini A, Romagnoli M, Giannini S. Alignments and clinical results in conventional and navigated total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 457 (457) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pang CH, Chan WL, Yen CH. , et al. Comparison of total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted navigation versus conventional guiding systems: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2009; 17 (02) 170-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Decking J, Theis C, Achenbach T, Roth E, Nafe B, Eckardt A. Robotic total knee arthroplasty: the accuracy of CT-based component placement. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (05) 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 2002; 9 (03) 173-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Liow MHL, Chin PL, Tay KJD, Chia SL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Early experiences with robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using the DigiMatch™ ROBODOC® surgical system. Singapore Med J 2014; 55 (10) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Song E-K, Seon J-K, Yim J-H, 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 (01) 118-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Marchand RC, 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Marchand R, Khlopas A, Sodhi N. , et al. Difficult cases in robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a case series. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (01) 27-37
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (05) 803-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jones B, Blyth M, MacLean A. , et al. Accuracy of UKA Implant Positioning and Early Clinical Outcomes in a RCT Comparing Robotic Assisted and Manual Surgery. Presented at the CAOS International Conference, Orlando, FL, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S. , et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 837167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen II RL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2016; XXIX: 303-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 329-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Illgen R. Robotic Arm Assisted THA Improved Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Outcomes Compared to Conventional Technique. Presented at the 43rd Annual Course: Advances in Arthroplasty, Boston, MA, 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Jerabok SA, Carroll KM, Maratt JD. , et al. Accuracy of Cup Positioning and Achieving Desired Hip Length and Offset Following Robotic THA. Presented at the CAOS International Conference, Orlando, FL, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 van der List JP, Chawla H, Villa JC, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Early functional outcome after lateral UKA is sensitive to postoperative lower limb alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 687-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgen R. , et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2015; 25 (06) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS. , et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2208-2218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Heng H-YC, Bin Abd Razak HR, Mitra AK. Radiographic grading of the patellofemoral joint is more accurate in skyline compared to lateral views. Ann Transl Med 2015; 3 (18) 263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schnurr C, Csécsei G, Eysel P, König DP. The effect of computer navigation on blood loss and transfusion rate in TKA. Orthopedics 2010; 33 (07) 474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. , et al. Coronal correction for severe deformity using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (01) 2-5
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gaudiani MA, Nwachukwu BU, Baviskar JV, Sharma M, Ranawat AS. Optimization of sagittal and coronal planes with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2017; 24 (04) 837-843
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE. Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it?. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (6, Suppl): 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury Jr JKJ. Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 2004; 188 (4A, Suppl): 2S-15S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Liberman D, Trinh Q-D, Jeldres C, Zorn KC. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22 (01) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 2004; 239 (01) 14-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sait KH. Early experience with the da Vinci surgical system robot in gynecological surgery at King Abdulaziz University Hospital. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3: 219-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Lang JE, Mannava S, Floyd AJ. , et al. Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (10) 1296-1299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Pearle AD, O'Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (02) 230-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar