Advertisement

Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Eun-Kyoo Song
  • Jong-Keun Seon
Chapter

Abstract

Various robotic systems have been developed to improve the accuracy of implant selection, its positioning and alignment, and bone resection. These systems are currently used worldwide for total knee arthroplasty. Many studies have clearly demonstrated that robotic systems can accurately and reliably control variables such as lower leg alignment, joint-line maintenance, soft tissue balance, and component positioning. In addition, they are more accurate and reliable than those used for conventional total knee arthroplasty. To date, however, few studies have assessed the survivorship and functional outcomes of robot-assisted surgery, and we found no sufficiently powered studies that compared these two parameters between robot-assisted and conventional knee arthroplasty. Although larger survivorship studies are necessary for these comparisons, robotics will continue to progress toward becoming a valuable tool for decreasing the revision rate and improving functional outcomes.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Robotic-assisted Implant position Mechanical axis Outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Laskin RS. The Genesis total knee prosthesis: a 10-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS. Total condylar knee replacement: a 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott WN, Rubinstein M, Scuderi G. Results after knee replacement with a posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:1163–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2000;15:970–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, et al. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:153–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takahashi T, Wada Y, Yamamoto H. Soft-tissue balancing with pressure distribution during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79B:235–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Gaudenzi A. Patellofemoral functional results and complications with the posterior stabilized total condylar knee prosthesis. J Arthroplast. 1988;3:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Börner M, Bauer A, Lahmer A. Rechnerunterstützter Robotereinsatz in der Hüftendoprothetik. Orthopade. 1997;26:251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, et al. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee. 2002;9(3):173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacofsky D, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:2353–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song EK, Seon JK, Park SJ, et al. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional technique: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:1069–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bargar WL. Robots in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, et al. Causes and patterns of aborting a robot-assisted arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NavioPFS FDA. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf12/K121936.pdf. 2006. Accessed 05 Jan 2006.
  16. 16.
    Plaskos C, Cinquin P, Lavallee S, et al. Praxiteles: a miniature bone-mounted robot for minimal access total knee arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1(4):67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lang JE, Mannava S, Floyd AJ, et al. Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liow MH, Xia Z, Wong MK, et al. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the joint line and mechanical axis. A prospective randomized study. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(12):2373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim SM, Park YS, Ha CW, et al. Robot-assisted implantation improves the precision of component position in minimally invasive TKA. Orthopedics. 2012;35(9):e1334–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, et al. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chonnam National University Hwasun HospitalHwasunSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations