Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty with the OMNIBot platform: a review of the principles of use and outcomes

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

A Correction to this article was published on 10 November 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Introduction

Technology that enables the orthopaedic surgeon to deliver a surgical plan with precision and reproducibility continues to evolve. Robotic TKA represents the next phase of technological development in knee arthroplasty. Multiple propriety robotic platforms are now available for use in TKA, and one such system is the OMNIBotics platform. We conducted a review of this system, reporting its history and principles of use, published outcomes and our own personal experience performing OMNI robotic-assisted TKAs.

Materials and methods

A literature review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Thirteen papers were included for the final review.

Results

The OMNIBot is an accurate and consistent delivery tool in TKA surgery and compares favourably to instrumented, navigation-assisted and patient-specific cutting guides. The OMNIBot has been shown to be a reliable tool for delivering different alignment philosophies as well as planning and achieving tibio-femoral coronal balancing. The utility of the system is increased when the robot is used in conjunction with a soft-tissue tensioning device—the BalanceBot. Data regarding PROM’s are limited, however results to date show reliable outcomes. Survival analysis of RATKA using the OMNIBot is limited to one study which reported 99.26% survivorship at 3 years. We report our own outcomes using the OMNIBot, having performed 766 TKA’s using the OMNIBot, since 2014 with 99.48% survivorship at 6 year follow-up.

Conclusion

The OMNIBot platform is an imageless, passive robotic system available since 2007, with over 30,000 TKA’s being performed with its assistance. It has a small physical footprint, is relatively inexpensive and time efficient. Our review demonstrates a high level of precision of the surgical planning, with a modestly improved accuracy compared to conventional and navigation technology. Published outcomes are limited, however demonstrate good short-term PROM’s and survivorship data that compare favourably to other robotic TKA cohorts.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. An VVG, Twiggs J, Leie M, Fritsch BA (2019) Kinematic alignment is bone and soft tissue preserving compared to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26(2):466–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonasia DE, Palazzolo A, Cottino U et al (2019) Modifiable and nonmodifiable predictive factors associated with the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. Joints 7(1):13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Clark TC, Schmidt FH (2013) Robot-assisted navigation versus computer-assisted navigation in primary total knee arthroplasty: efficiency and accuracy. ISRN Orthop 2013:794827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Figueroa F, Wakelin E, Twiggs J, Fritsch B (2019) Comparison between navigated reported position and postoperative computed tomography to evaluate accuracy in a robotic navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26(4):869–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huijbregts HJ, Khan RJ, Fick DP et al (2016) Component alignment and clinical outcome following total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial comparing an intramedullary alignment system with patient-specific instrumentation. Bone Joint J 98-B(8):1043–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jiang Y, Sanchez-Santos MT, Judge AD, Murray DW, Arden NK (2017) Predictors of patient-reported pain and functional outcomes over 10 years after primary total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 32(1):92-100 e102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karachalios T, Varitimidis S, Bargiotas K, Hantes M, Roidis N, Malizos KN (2016) An 11- to 15-year clinical outcome study of the advance medial pivot total knee arthroplasty: pivot knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-B(8):1050–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koenig JA, Shalhoub S, Chen EA, Plaskos C (2019) Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in robotic-assisted measured-resection TKA using a robotic distraction tool. CAOS 2019 EPiC Ser Health Sci 3:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  9. Koulalis D, O’Loughlin PF, Plaskos C, Kendoff D, Cross MB, Pearle AD (2011) Sequential versus automated cutting guides in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee 18(6):436–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koulalis D, O’Loughlin PF, Plaskos C, Kendoff D, Pearle AD (2010) Adjustable cutting blocks for computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a cadaver study. J Arthroplasty 25(5):807–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martín-Hernández C, Sanz-Sainz M, Revenga-Giertych C, Hernández-Vaquero D, Fernández-Carreira JM, Albareda-Albareda J et al (2018) Artroplastia total de rodilla navegada versus convencional; estudio prospectivo a 3 a˜nos de seguimiento. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 62:282–289

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mathew KK, Degouveia W, Marchand KB et al (2020) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 36:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  13. McClelland JA, Webster KE, Ramteke AA, Feller JA (2017) Total knee arthroplasty with computer-assisted navigation more closely replicates normal knee biomechanics than conventional surgery. Knee 24(3):651–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nam D, Maher PA, Rebolledo BJ, Nawabi DH, McLawhorn AS, Pearle AD (2013) Patient specific cutting guides versus an imageless, computer-assisted surgery system in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 20(4):263–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Plaskos C, Cinquin P, Lavallée S, Hodgson AJ (2005) Praxiteles: a miniature bone-mounted robot for minimal access total knee arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot 1(4):67–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Plaskos C, Koenig JA, Ponder CE (2012) Robotic-assisted knee replacement surgery. In: Medical robotics: minimally invasive surgery. Woodhead Publishing, pp 113–158

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Shalhoub S, Lawrence JM, Keggi JM, Randall AL, DeClaire JH, Plaskos C (2019) Imageless, robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty combined with a robotic tensioning system can help predict and achieve accurate postoperative ligament balance. Arthroplast Today 5(3):334–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shalhoub S, Moschetti WE, Dabuzhsky L, Jevsevar DS, Keggi JM, Plaskos C (2018) Laxity profiles in the native and replaced knee-application to robotic-assisted gap-balancing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(9):3043–3048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shalhoub S, Plaskos C, Todorov A, Lawrence JM, Keggi JM (2020) Development of an active soft-tissue balancing system for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 459–473

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stindel E, Briard JL, Merloz P et al (2002) Bone morphing: 3D morphological data for total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 7(3):156–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stindel E, Gil D, Briard JL, Merloz P, Dubrana F, Lefevre C (2005) Detection of the center of the hip joint in computer-assisted surgery: an evaluation study of the Surgetics algorithm. Comput Aided Surg 10(3):133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Suero EM, Citak M, Njoku IU, Pearle AD (2013) Does the type of tibial component affect mechanical alignment in unicompartmental knee replacement? Technol Health Care 21(1):81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Suero EM, Plaskos C, Dixon PL, Pearle AD (2012) Adjustable cutting blocks improve alignment and surgical time in computer-assisted total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(9):1736–1741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Onsem S, Van Der Straeten C, Arnout N, Deprez P, Van Damme G, Victor J (2016) A new prediction model for patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(12):2660-2667 e2661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wakelin EA, Shalhoub S, Lawrence JM et al (2021) Improved total knee arthroplasty pain outcome when joint gap targets are achieved throughout flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06482-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. James Keevy Corin Group (Australia) for providing images for use in this manuscript and Dr. Christopher Plaskos Corin Group (USA) for providing information regarding the history of the OMNIBot

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. No funding was received for conducting this study. No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Chatswood, Australia

    J. Shatrov & B. Fritsch

  2. University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

    G. T. Murphy & J. Duong

  3. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    B. Fritsch

Authors
  1. J. Shatrov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. T. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Fritsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Shatrov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JS, GM and JD have no conflicts of interest to declare. BF has fellowship support from Corin.

Ethics approval

This is a review article of published literature, therefore ethics approval was required for this study.

Informed consent

This is a review article of published literature, therefore informed consent was required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised: Modifications have been made in the “Personal Experience” section. Full information regarding the corrections made can be found in the erratum/correction for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shatrov, J., Murphy, G.T., Duong, J. et al. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty with the OMNIBot platform: a review of the principles of use and outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141, 2087–2096 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04173-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04173-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation