Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty (RAKA): The Technique, the Technology and the Transition

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There has been an exponential increase in knee arthroplasty over the past 20 years. This has led to a quest for improvement in outcomes and patient satisfaction. While the last decade of last century proved to be the decade for Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS) or Computer Navigation wherein the technology demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of improving mechanical axis alignment and component positioning, this decade is likely to belong to Robotics. Robotics adds an independent dimension to the benefits that CAS offers. The article deals with the generation of robots, technical steps in robotics, advantages and downsides of robotics and way forward in the field of knee arthroplasty.

Materials and Methods

The review article was designed and edited by six different authors reviewing 32 relevant pubmed-based articles related to robotics in arthroplasty and orthopaedics. The concept, design and the definition of the intellectual content were based on the internationally published literature and insightful articles. The review is also based on the clinical experimental studies published in the literature.

Discussion

The robotic arm is actively involved with surgeon to achieve the precision and outcomes that the surgeon aims for. With the concept of haptic boundaries and augmented reality being incorporated in most systems, Robotic Assisted Arthroplasty (RAA) is likely to offer several advantages. The potential advantages of these systems may include accuracy in gap balancing, component positioning, minimal bone resection, reduced soft tissue handling and trauma, patient anatomy specific resection, and real time feedback. They, however, come with their own downsides in terms of capital cost, learning curve, time consumption and unclear advantages in term of long-term clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

To conclude, this review article offers a balanced view on how the technology is impacting current arthroplasty practice and what can be expected in coming years. The commitment of almost all major implant manufacturers in investing in robotics likely means that the evolution of Robotic technology and this decade will be exciting with rapid strides revealing paradigm shift and evolution of technology with significant reductions of cost enabling it to be available universally. For technology to populate in operating room, I think it will be result of exposure of young surgeons to these computers and robotics, as they grow in with confidence with technology from residency days to offer better precision in future.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orthopedic Network News. (2013). Hip and knee implant review. Available at: http://www.OrthopedicNetworkNews.com.

  2. MDDI Online. MDDI Online. (2020). Available from: https://www.mddionline.com/. Cited Feb 21, 2020

  3. Boylan, M., Suchman, K., Vigdorchik, J., Slover, J., & Bosco, J. (2018). Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 33(4), 1019–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalton, D. M., Burke, T. P., Kelly, E. G., & Curtin, P. D. (2016). Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in knee arthroplasty: using patent and publication metric to identify developments and trends. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 31, 1366e72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dorr, L. D. (2020). CORR Insights®: Does robotic-assisted TKA result in better outcome scores or long-term survivorship than conventional TKA a randomized, controlled trial. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 478(2), 276–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalton, D. M., Burke, T. P., Kelly, E. G., & Curtin, P. D. (2016). Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in knee arthroplasty: using patent and publication metrics to identify developments and trends. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 31(6), 1366–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacofsky, D. J., & Allen, M. (2016). Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 31(10), 2353–2363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lonner, J. H. (2009) Robotic arm–assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty. In Seminars in Arthroplasty 2009 Mar 1 (Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 15–22). WB Saunders.

  9. Lonner, J. H., & Moretti, V. M. (2016). The evolution of image-free robotic assistance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. American Journal of Orthopedics, 45(4), 249–254.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kienzle III TC, Stulberg SD, Peshkin M, Quaid A, Ambarish JL, Lea J, Goswami A, Wu CH. A computer-assisted total knee replacement surgical system using a calibrated robot.

  11. Kurtz, S. M., Ong, K. L., Lau, E., & Bozic, K. J. (2014). Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. JBJS., 96(8), 624–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. JBJS., 89(4), 780–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. La Palombara, P. F., Fadda, M., Martelli, S., & Marcacci, M. (1997). Minimally invasive 3D data registration in computer and robot assisted total knee arthroplasty. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 35(6), 600–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwarzkopf, R., Mikhael, B., Li, L., Josephs, L., & Scott, R. D. (2013). Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA. Orthopedics., 36(4), e409–e414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lonner, J. H., John, T. K., & Conditt, M. A. (2010). Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(1), 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bell, S. W., Anthony, I., Jones, B., MacLean, A., Rowe, P., & Blyth, M. (2016). Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. JBJS., 98(8), 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blyth, M. J., Anthony, I., Rowe, P., Banger, M. S., MacLean, A., & Jones, B. (2017). Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone & Joint Research., 6(11), 631–639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dunbar, N. J., Roche, M. W., Park, B. H., Branch, S. H., Conditt, M. A., & Banks, S. A. (2012). Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 27(5), 803–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lonner, J. H., Smith, J. R., Picard, F., Hamlin, B., & Rowe, P. J. (2015). Riches PE (2015) High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(1), 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansen, D. C., Kusuma, S. K., Palmer, R. M., & Harris, K. B. (2014). Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 29(9), 1784–1789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ponzio, D. Y., & Lonner, J. H. (2016). Robotic technology produces more conservative tibial resection than conventional techniques in UKA. American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead, NJ)., 45(7), E465–E468.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Plate, J. F., Mofidi, A., Mannava, S., Smith, B. P., Lang, J. E., Poehling, G. G., Conditt, M. A., Jinnah, R. H. (2013). Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Advances in Orthopedics.

  23. Sharkey, P. F., Lichstein, P. M., Shen, C., Tokarski, A. T., & Parvizi, J. (2014). Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? The Journal of Arthroplasty., 29(9), 1774–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blyth M, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P. Two-year results of a randomized trial of robotic surgical assistance vs manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. November 2017; Dallas, TX.

  25. Chowdhry, M., Khakha, R. S., Norris, M., Kheiran, A., & Chauhan, S. K. (2017). Improved survival of computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 252 cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The Journal of Arthroplasty., 32(4), 1132–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pearle, A. D., Van Der List, J. P., Lee, L., Coon, T. M., Borus, T. A., & Roche, M. W. (2017). Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. The Knee, 24(2), 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sharkey, P. F., Hozack, W. J., Rothman, R. H., Shastri, S., & Jacoby, S. M. (2002). Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 404, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parratte, S., Pagnano, M. W., Trousdale, R. T., & Berry, D. J. (2010). Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. JBJS., 92(12), 2143–2149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bellemans, J., Vandenneucker, H., & Vanlauwe, J. (2007). Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 464, 1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Decking, J., Theis, C., Achenbach, T., Roth, E., Nafe, B., & Eckardt, A. (2004). Robotic total knee arthroplasty the accuracy of CT-based component placement. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 75(5), 573–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Park, S. E., & Lee, C. T. (2007). Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of arthroplasty., 22(7), 1054–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Song, E. K., Seon, J. K., Park, S. J., Jung, W. B., Park, H. W., & Lee, G. W. (2011). Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 19(7), 1069–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cms.gov. (2020). National Health Expenditure Data | CMS. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData. Cited Feb 21, 2020.

  34. Liu, Z., Gao, Y., & Cai, L. (2015). Imageless navigation versus traditional method in total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery., 1(21), 122–127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Sir H N Reliance Foundation Hospital, Girgaum, Mumbai, India

    Vaibhav Bagaria, Omkar S. Sadigale, Prashant P. Pawar & Ajinkya Achalare

  2. NorthShore University Health System, Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Ravi K. Bashyal

  3. Engineering and Industrial Services, Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai, India

    Murali Poduval

Authors
  1. Vaibhav Bagaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omkar S. Sadigale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prashant P. Pawar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ravi K. Bashyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ajinkya Achalare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Murali Poduval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vaibhav Bagaria.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standard statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

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

Bagaria, V., Sadigale, O.S., Pawar, P.P. et al. Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty (RAKA): The Technique, the Technology and the Transition. JOIO 54, 745–756 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-020-00088-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-020-00088-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation