Literature DB >> 35913518

A new robotically assisted technique can improve outcomes of total knee arthroplasty comparing to an imageless navigation system.

Fabio Mancino1,2,3, Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi4, Rudy Sangaletti1, Ludovico Lucenti1, Flavio Terragnoli5, Francesco Benazzo1,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has shown improved knee alignment and reduced radiographic outliers. However, there remains debate on functional outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). This study compares the 1-year clinical outcomes of a new imageless robotically assisted technique (ROSA Knee System, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) with an imageless navigated procedure (NTKA, iAssist Knee, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN).
METHODS: The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data that compared the functional outcomes and PROMs of 50 imageless RTKA with 47 imageless NTKA at 1-year follow-up. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative information were collected including complications, revisions, Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) score, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12). Radiographic analysis of preoperative and postoperative images evaluating hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was performed.
RESULTS: There was no difference regarding baseline characteristics between the groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer in the RTKA group (122 min vs. 97 min; p < 0.0001). Significant differences were reported for the "Pain" (85 [RTKA] vs 79.1 [NTKA]; p = 0.0283) subsection of the KOOS score. In addition, RTKA was associated with higher maximum range of motion (119.4° vs. 107.1°; p < 0.0001) and better mean improvement of the arc of motion by 11.67° (23.02° vs. 11.36°; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were noted for other subsections of KOOS, KSS, FJS-12, complications, or limb alignment at 1-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Imageless RTKA was associated with longer surgical time, better pain perception and improved ROM at 12-month follow-up compared with NTKA. No significant differences were reported on other PROMs, complication rates and radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Imageless navigation; Imageless robotic TKA; Patient-reported outcomes; Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Total knee arthroplasty

Year:  2022        PMID: 35913518     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04560-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   2.928


  36 in total

1.  Early revision for component malrotation in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephen J Incavo; John J Wild; Kathryn M Coughlin; Bruce D Beynnon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Accuracy of a New Robotically Assisted Technique for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Sébastien Parratte; Andrew J Price; Lee M Jeys; William F Jackson; Henry D Clarke
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 3.  Patient Dissatisfaction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Rajitha Gunaratne; Dylan N Pratt; Joseph Banda; Daniel P Fick; Riaz J K Khan; Brett W Robertson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Patient Satisfaction Outcomes after Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Short-Term Evaluation.

Authors:  Robert C Marchand; Nipun Sodhi; Anton Khlopas; Assem A Sultan; Steven F Harwin; Arthur L Malkani; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 2.757

5.  Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Demonstrated Greater Accuracy and Precision to Plan Compared with Manual Techniques.

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

Review 6.  Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?

Authors:  A V Lombardi; K R Berend; J B Adams
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Patient-Reported Functional and Satisfaction Outcomes after Robotic-Arm-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Early Results of a Prospective Multicenter Investigation.

Authors:  Anton Khlopas; Nipun Sodhi; William J Hozack; Antonia F Chen; Ormonde M Mahoney; Tracy Kinsey; Fabio Orozco; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Causes and predictors of patient's dissatisfaction after uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tae Kyun Kim; Chong Bum Chang; Yeon Gwi Kang; Sung Ju Kim; Sang Cheol Seong
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nikhil Agarwal; Kendrick To; Stephen McDonnell; Wasim Khan
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 4.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.