Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare radiographic and clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional manual techniques in restricted kinematically aligned TKA.
Methods
Patients who underwent either manual or robotic-assisted restricted kinematically aligned TKA between 2019 and 2020 were included in this retrospective comparative study. Radiographic outcomes comprised coronal plane measurements performed through standing full-length anteroposterior radiographs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford score, Visual Analog Scale pain and satisfaction score, and Forgotten Joint Score were used to determine the clinical outcome. The continuous data were compared by Student’s t test according to the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov normality test.
Results
The manual group consisted of 46 patients (38 females, eight males) with a mean age of 68.1 years, and the robotic group consisted of 70 patients (58 females, 12 males) with a mean age of 65.7 years (n.s.). Preoperatively, no significant difference was observed between groups concerning demographic characteristics, radiographic measurements, and clinical scores except for the symptom and pain domains of the KOOS score, which was significantly worse in the manual group (p = 0.011 and 0.035, respectively). At the postoperative 2-year follow-up, we observed significant differences between groups with respect to the mean HKA angle, mMPTA, and mLDFA (p = 0.034, 0.041, and 0.005, respectively). A comparison of clinical scores at the postoperative 2-year follow-up demonstrated no significant differences between groups.
Conclusion
The current study demonstrated that using robotic-assisted technique for restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) resulted in significantly better outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique in achieving normal ranges of lower extremity coronal alignment measurements. While the robotic-assisted group demonstrated better clinical scores, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the robotic-assisted group and the control group at the two-year follow-up. Concerning clinical relevance, the restoration of original anatomy and coronal alignment, a crucial concern in restricted kinematically aligned TKA, may be better achieved by the robotic-assisted technique.
Level of evidence
Level III (Retrospective cohort study).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
Data available on request from authors.
References
Almaawi AM, Hutt JRB, Masse V, Lavigne M, Vendittoli P-A (2017) The impact of mechanical and restricted kinematic alignment on knee anatomy in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32(7):2133–2140
Bell C, Grau L, Orozco F, Ponzio D, Post Z, Czymek M et al (2022) The successful implementation of the Navio robotic technology required 29 cases. J Robot Surg 16(3):495–499
Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J (2012) The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):45–53
Bollars P, Boeckxstaens A, Mievis J, Kalaai S, Schotanus MGM, Janssen D (2020) 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 30(4):723–729
Calliess T, Bauer K, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Windhagen H, Budde S, Ettinger M (2017) PSI kinematic versus non-PSI mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(6):1743–1748
Dossett HG, Estrada NA, Swartz GJ, LeFevre GW, Kwasman BG (2014) A randomised controlled trial of kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee replacements: two-year clinical results. Bone Joint J. 96-B(7):907–913
Hirschmann MT, Moser LB, Amsler F, Behrend H, Leclercq V, Hess S (2019) Phenotyping the knee in young non-osteoarthritic knees shows a wide distribution of femoral and tibial coronal alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(5):1385–1393
Hirschmann MT, Moser LB, Amsler F, Behrend H, Leclerq V, Hess S (2019) Functional knee phenotypes: a novel classification for phenotyping the coronal lower limb alignment based on the native alignment in young non-osteoarthritic patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(5):1394–1402
Howell SM, Hull ML (2012) Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty. In: Scott WN (ed) Insall and scott surgery of the knee. Elsevier, Philadelphia
Howell SM, Nedopil AJ, Hull ML (2022) Negligible effect of surgeon experience on the accuracy and time to perform unrestricted caliper verified kinematically aligned TKA with manual instruments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30(9):2966–2974
Huber K, Christen B, Calliess S, Calliess T (2021) True kinematic alignment is applicable in 44% of patients applying restrictive indication criteria—a retrospective analysis of 111 TKA using robotic assistance. J Pers Med 11(7):662
Ji HM, Han J, Jin DS, Seo H, Won YY (2016) Kinematically aligned TKA can align knee joint line to horizontal. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(8):2436–2441
Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Pearle AD, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR (2018) Predicting the feasibility of correcting mechanical axis in large varus deformities with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(2):372–378
Kort N, Stirling P, Pilot P, Müller JH (2022) Robot-assisted knee arthroplasty improves component positioning and alignment, but results are inconclusive on whether it improves clinical scores or reduces complications and revisions: a systematic overview of meta-analyses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:2639–2653
Liu B, Feng C, Tu C (2022) Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in primary total knee arthroplasty: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 17:201
MacDessi SJ, Wernecke GC, Bastiras D, Hooper T, Heath E, Lorimer M et al (2022) Robotic-assisted surgery and kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty (RASKAL study): a protocol of a national registry-nested, multicentre, 2×2 factorial randomised trial assessing clinical, intraoperative, functional, radiographic and survivorship outcomes. BMJ Open 12:e051088
Misso D, Zhen E, Kelly J, Collopy D, Clark G (2021) A progressive scholarly acceptance analysis of robot-assisted arthroplasty: a review of the literature and prediction of future research trends. J Robot Surg 15:813–819
Nisar S, Palan J, Rivière C, Emerton M, Pandit H (2020) Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 5:380–390
Nogalo C, Meena A, Abermann E, Fink C (2022) Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07031-1
Popat R, Albelooshi A, Mahapatra P, Bollars P, Ettinger M, Jennings S et al (2022) Improved joint line and posterior offset restoration in primary total knee replacement using a robotic-assisted surgical technique: an international multi-centre retrospective analysis of matched cohorts. PLoS ONE 17(8):e0272722
Schelker BL, Moret CS, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Graichen H, Arnold MP, Leclercq V et al (2022) The impact of different alignment strategies on bone cuts for neutral knee phenotypes in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07209-7
Vaidya N, Jaysingani TN, Panjwani T, Patil R, Deshpande A, Kesarkar A (2022) Assessment of accuracy of an imageless hand-held robotic-assisted system in component positioning in total knee replacement: a prospective study. J Robot Surg 16:361–367
Vendittoli PA, Martinov S, Blakeney WG (2021) Restricted kinematic alignment, the fundamentals, and clinical applications. Front Surg 8:697020
Yeo JH, Seon JK, Lee DH, Song EK (2019) No difference in outcomes and gait analysis between mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods using robotic total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1142–1147
Acknowledgements
There is no acknowledgement.
Funding
No fund was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KT: design, writing, editing, senior author. YC: design, writing, editing, analysis of data. MK: measurement of data, editing. YU: measurement of data, editing. YOK: editing, analysis of data. HU: editing, analysis of data. AT: measurement of data, editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This retrospective cohort study was performed under the approval of the institutional ethical review board (ID: E-22686390-050.01.04-4762).
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained for each patient.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Turan, K., Camurcu, Y., Kezer, M. et al. A comparison of robotic-assisted and manual techniques in restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty: coronal alignment improvement with no significant clinical differences. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31, 4673–4679 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07426-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07426-8