Emily L Hampp1, Nipun Sodhi2, Laura Scholl1, Matthew E Deren3, Zachary Yenna4, Geoffrey Westrich5, Michael A Mont2. 1. Implant and Robotic Research, Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, New York, USA. 3. UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Davis Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Layton, Utah, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The use of the haptically bounded saw blades in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) can potentially help to limit surrounding soft-tissue injuries. However, there are limited data characterizing these injuries for cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA with the use of this technique. The objective of this cadaver study was to compare the extent of soft-tissue damage sustained through a robotic-assisted, haptically guided TKA (RATKA) versus a manual TKA (MTKA) approach. METHODS: A total of 12 fresh-frozen pelvis-to-toe cadaver specimens were included. Four surgeons each prepared three RATKA and three MTKA specimens for cruciate-retaining TKAs. A RATKA was performed on one knee and a MTKA on the other. Postoperatively, two additional surgeons assessed and graded damage to 14 key anatomical structures in a blinded manner. Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis tests were performed to assess statistical differences in soft-tissue damage between RATKA and MTKA cases. RESULTS: Significantly less damage occurred to the PCLs in the RATKA versus the MTKA specimens (p < 0.001). RATKA specimens had non-significantly less damage to the deep medial collateral ligaments (p = 0.149), iliotibial bands (p = 0.580), poplitei (p = 0.248), and patellar ligaments (p = 0.317). The remaining anatomical structures had minimal soft-tissue damage in all MTKA and RATKA specimens. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that less soft-tissue damage may occur when utilizing RATKA compared with MTKA. These findings are likely due to the enhanced preoperative planning with the robotic software, the real-time intraoperative feedback, and the haptically bounded saw blade, all of which may help protect the surrounding soft tissues and ligaments.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;8:495-501.
OBJECTIVES: The use of the haptically bounded saw blades in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) can potentially help to limit surrounding soft-tissue injuries. However, there are limited data characterizing these injuries for cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA with the use of this technique. The objective of this cadaver study was to compare the extent of soft-tissue damage sustained through a robotic-assisted, haptically guided TKA (RATKA) versus a manual TKA (MTKA) approach. METHODS: A total of 12 fresh-frozen pelvis-to-toe cadaver specimens were included. Four surgeons each prepared three RATKA and three MTKA specimens for cruciate-retaining TKAs. A RATKA was performed on one knee and a MTKA on the other. Postoperatively, two additional surgeons assessed and graded damage to 14 key anatomical structures in a blinded manner. Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis tests were performed to assess statistical differences in soft-tissue damage between RATKA and MTKA cases. RESULTS: Significantly less damage occurred to the PCLs in the RATKA versus the MTKA specimens (p < 0.001). RATKA specimens had non-significantly less damage to the deep medial collateral ligaments (p = 0.149), iliotibial bands (p = 0.580), poplitei (p = 0.248), and patellar ligaments (p = 0.317). The remaining anatomical structures had minimal soft-tissue damage in all MTKA and RATKA specimens. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that less soft-tissue damage may occur when utilizing RATKA compared with MTKA. These findings are likely due to the enhanced preoperative planning with the robotic software, the real-time intraoperative feedback, and the haptically bounded saw blade, all of which may help protect the surrounding soft tissues and ligaments.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;8:495-501.
Authors: Coen A Wijdicks; Chad J Griffith; Steinar Johansen; Lars Engebretsen; Robert F LaPrade Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Samik Banerjee; Jeffrey J Cherian; Randa K Elmallah; Julio J Jauregui; Todd P Pierce; Michael A Mont Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Anton Khlopas; Nipun Sodhi; Assem A Sultan; Morad Chughtai; Robert M Molloy; Michael A Mont Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Robert C Marchand; Anton Khlopas; Nipun Sodhi; Caitlin Condrey; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Rickesh Patel; Ronald E Delanois; Michael A Mont Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 2.757