Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assistive technologies in knee arthroplasty: fashion or evolution? Rate of publications and national registries prove the Scott Parabola wrong

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Most opponents of assistive technologies in orthopedic surgery consider them as a marketing ruse or fashion. Our hypothesis was that many innovations in modern knee arthroplasty are not following the Scott Parabola. This parabola represents the visual curve of a procedure or therapy showing great promise at the beginning, becoming the standard treatment after reports of encouraging results, only to fall into disuse due to adverse outcome reports. This study aimed to assess the interest in these assistive technologies by (1) their number of publications/year and (2) their actual surgical use reported in the National Joint Registries.

Methods

The search was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from 1997 to 2021 inclusive to identify all available literature that described the use and results of assistive technologies or new surgical techniques in knee arthroplasty. In the Australian and Norwegian registries, the number of cases performed with these techniques in knee arthroplasty has been quantified year by year.

Results

Following the initial online search, a total of 4085 articles was found. After the assessment mentioned above, 2106 articles were included in the study. The orthopedic techniques assessed in this study are not following the “Scott’s parabola” in the literature. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty and patient-specific instrumentation have increased quickly to have reached a plateau, with a stable number of publications over the last 6 years. The number of publications concerning robotic surgery, accelerometers and sensors continue to rise. In the Australian registry, the proportion of primary TKA performed by computer-assisted systems increased from 2.4% in 2003 to 32% in 2019. In the Norwegian registry, the proportion of computer-assisted TKA remained between 8 and 12% of primary TKA since 2007.

Conclusion

Most of the innovations in modern knee arthroplasty are not following the Scott Parabola. After a fast rise, these techniques do not disappear but continue to evolve. Their evolution is synergistic, and techniques appeared to be linked to each other’s. Despite persisting concerns about the cost-efficiency of assisting technologies in knee arthroplasties, the interest and use do not decrease and seems to be directly linked to an exponential increase in interest for a better understanding of alignment targets and improved functional recovery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(4):780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gao J, Dong S, Li JJ, Ge L, Xing D, Lin J (2020) New technology-based assistive techniques in total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kawaguchi K, Michishita K, Manabe T, Akasaka Y, Higuchi J (2017) Comparison of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system, patient-specific instrumentation, and conventional instrumentation for femoral alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 29(4):269–275. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.17.032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liow MH, Goh GS, Pang HN, Tay DK, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2016) Computer-assisted stereotaxic navigation improves the accuracy of mechanical alignment and component positioning in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(8):1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2483-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van der List JP, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle AD (2016) Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(11):3482–3495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4305-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Robinson PG, Clement ND, Hamilton D, Blyth MJG, Haddad FS, Patton JT (2019) A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prosthesis design and type should be reported. Bone Jt J 101(7):838–847. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1317.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Onggo JR, Onggo JD, De Steiger R, Hau R (2020) Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is comparable to conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(10):1533–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03512-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klasan A, Putnis SE, Grasso S, Neri T, Coolican MR (2020) Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(6):801–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03403-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yamamura K, Inori F, Konishi S (2021) Evaluation of the accuracy of resected bone thickness based on patient-specific instrumentation during total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03805-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeFrance MJ, Yayac MF, Courtney PM, Squire MW (2020) The impact of author financial conflicts on robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty research. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Booth RE, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J (2019) Robotics in hip and knee arthroplasty: real innovation or marketing ruse. J Arthroplasty 34(10):2197–2198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott JW (2001) Scott’s parabola: the rise and fall of a surgical technique. Br Med J 323:1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Foran JR, Whited BW, Sporer SM (2011) Early aseptic loosening with a precoated low-profile tibial component: a case series. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1445–1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kajetanek C, Bouyer B, Ollivier M, Boisrenoult P, Pujol N, Beaufils P (2016) Mid-term survivorship of mini-keel versus standard keel in total knee replacements: differences in the rate of revision for aseptic loosening. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(5):611–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.05.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeon SW, Kim KI, Song SJ (2019) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty does not improve long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 34(8):1656–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (2020) Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: 2020 annual report. AOA, Adelaide, pp 1–474

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bergen H, Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2020) Norwegian National Advisory Unit on arthroplasty and hip fractures 2020 annual report. Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, pp 1–377

    Google Scholar 

  18. Petursson G, Fenstad AM, Gothesen O, Dyrhovden GS, Hallan G, Rohrl SM et al (2018) Computer-assisted compared with conventional total knee replacement: a multicenter parallel-group randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am 100(15):1265–1274. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cip J, Obwegeser F, Benesch T, Bach C, Ruckenstuhl P, Martin A (2018) Twelve-year follow-up of navigated computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplasty 33(5):1404–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pagnano MW, Argenson JN, Parratte S, Scuderi GR, Booth RE Jr (2009) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty meets computer navigation. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(Suppl):556–558. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Murgier J, Clatworthy M (2020) Variable rotation of the femur does not affect outcome with patient specific alignment navigated balanced TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06226-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moore RE, Conditt MA, Roche MW, Verstraete MA (2021) How to quantitatively balance a total knee? A surgical algorithm to assure balance and control alignment. Sensors (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030700

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mooney LT, Smith A, Sloan K, Clark GW (2016) The effect of the native kinematics of the knee on the outcome following total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 98(11):1471–1478. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0144.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Boylan M, Suchman K, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Bosco J (2018) Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplasty 33(4):1019–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Antonios JK, Korber S, Sivasundaram L, Mayfield C, Kang HP, Oakes DA et al (2019) Trends in computer navigation and robotic assistance for total knee arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis of patient and hospital factors. Arthroplast Today 5(1):88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.01.002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Klasan A, Meine E, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Efe T, Boettner F, Heyse TJ (2019) Are serum metal ion levels a concern at mid-term followup of revision knee arthroplasty with a metal-on-metal Hinge design? Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(9):2007–2014. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000638

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hamilton D, Howie CR, Gaston P, Simpson H (2012) Scott’s parabola and the rise and fall of metal-on-metal hip replacements. BMJ 345:e8306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2017) Efficacy of patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 99(6):521–530. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. Bone Jt J 96(8):1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B8.33747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonnin MP, Beckers L, Leon A, Chauveau J, Muller JH, Tibesku CO et al (2020) Custom total knee arthroplasty facilitates restoration of constitutional coronal alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06153-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giannotti S, Sacchetti F, Citarelli C, Bottai V, Bianchi N, Agostini G et al (2020) Single-use, patient-specific instrumentation technology in knee arthroplasty: a comparative study between standard instrumentation and PSI efficiency system. Musculoskelet Surg 104(2):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00612-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moerenhout K, Allami B, Gkagkalis G, Guyen O, Jolles BM (2021) Advantages of patient-specific cutting guides with disposable instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a case control study. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02310-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dalton DM, Burke TP, Kelly EG, Curtin PD (2016) Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in knee arthroplasty: using patent and publication metrics to identify developments and trends. J Arthroplasty 31(6):1366–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, Lyon, France

    Cécile Batailler

  2. International Knee and Joint Centre, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Sébastien Parratte

  3. Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Sébastien Parratte

Authors
  1. Cécile Batailler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sébastien Parratte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Parratte.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

CB: Grant from SoFCOT. SP: Royalties from Zimmer Biomet and Newclip; Consultant for Zimmer Biomet; Treasurer for European Knee Society.

Ethical approval

Not applicable (publication metrics).

Informed consent

Not applicable (publication metrics).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batailler, C., Parratte, S. Assistive technologies in knee arthroplasty: fashion or evolution? Rate of publications and national registries prove the Scott Parabola wrong. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141, 2027–2034 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04051-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04051-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation