Kyu-Jin Cho1, Jong-Keun Seon1, Won-Young Jang1, Chun-Gon Park1, Eun-Kyoo Song2,3. 1. Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea. 2. Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea. eksong@chonnam.ac.kr. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160 Ilsimri, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea. eksong@chonnam.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was (1) to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotic and conventional total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of ten years, (2) to evaluate the survival rate, (3) and to estimate the accuracy of the two techniques by analyzing the outliers of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. METHODS: We evaluated 351 patients (390 knees), 155 patients undergoing robotic TKA, and 196 patients treated with conventional TKA with a mean follow-up of 11.0 years. HSS, KSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 questionnaires were used for clinical evaluation. Mechanical alignment, implant radiological measurements, and outliers were analyzed for radiological results. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for survival rate. RESULTS: All clinical assessments showed excellent improvements in both groups (all p < 0.05), without any significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The conventional TKA group showed a significantly higher number of outliers compared with the robotic TKA group (0 < 0.05). The cumulative survival rate was 98.8% in the robotic TKA group and 98.5% in the conventional TKA group with excellent survival (p = 0.563). CONCLUSION: Our study showed excellent survival with both robotic and conventional TKA and similar clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. And, in terms of radiological outcome, robotic TKA showed better accuracy and consistency with fewer outliers compared with conventional TKA. With longer follow-up and larger cohort, the accuracy and effectiveness of robotic TKA on implant survival rate can be elucidated in the future.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was (1) to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotic and conventional total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of ten years, (2) to evaluate the survival rate, (3) and to estimate the accuracy of the two techniques by analyzing the outliers of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. METHODS: We evaluated 351 patients (390 knees), 155 patients undergoing robotic TKA, and 196 patients treated with conventional TKA with a mean follow-up of 11.0 years. HSS, KSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 questionnaires were used for clinical evaluation. Mechanical alignment, implant radiological measurements, and outliers were analyzed for radiological results. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for survival rate. RESULTS: All clinical assessments showed excellent improvements in both groups (all p < 0.05), without any significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The conventional TKA group showed a significantly higher number of outliers compared with the robotic TKA group (0 < 0.05). The cumulative survival rate was 98.8% in the robotic TKA group and 98.5% in the conventional TKA group with excellent survival (p = 0.563). CONCLUSION: Our study showed excellent survival with both robotic and conventional TKA and similar clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. And, in terms of radiological outcome, robotic TKA showed better accuracy and consistency with fewer outliers compared with conventional TKA. With longer follow-up and larger cohort, the accuracy and effectiveness of robotic TKA on implant survival rate can be elucidated in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conventional; Long-term result; Robotic; Total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Emily L Hampp; Morad Chughtai; Laura Y Scholl; Nipun Sodhi; Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker; David J Jacofsky; Michael A Mont Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Christopher L Blum; Eric Lepkowsky; Adil Hussein; Edgar A Wakelin; Christopher Plaskos; Jan A Koenig Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: James Randolph Onggo; Jason Derry Onggo; Richard De Steiger; Raphael Hau Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Valentina Campanelli; Rocio Lozano; Hosna Akhlaghpour; Abheetinder S Brar; David Maislin; Alexander J Nedopil; Joel Zuhars Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-02
Authors: Sanar S Yokhana; D Alex Hamilton; Sasha A Stine; Lauren N Stimson; Abdul K Zalikha; Chaoyang Chen; Hussein F Darwiche Journal: J Orthop Date: 2021-02-09