Philip Winnock de Grave1,2, J Kellens3, T Tampere4,5, H Vermue5, T Luyckx4,3, K Claeys6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Delta Roeselare, Deltalaan 1, 8800, Roeselare, Belgium. philip.winnockdegrave@azdelta.be. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KULeuven, Brugge, Belgium. philip.winnockdegrave@azdelta.be. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Delta Roeselare, Deltalaan 1, 8800, Roeselare, Belgium. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UZ Gent, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KULeuven, Brugge, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotically assisted surgery was introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to increase the precision of implant positioning and optimize clinical outcomes. However, the target implant position or alignment is debated. The aim of this study was twofold: to compare clinical outcomes of conventional TKA vs. robotically assisted TKA in an adjusted mechanically aligned (MA) TKA series, and to analyze the clinical effects of introducing patient-specific alignment (inverse kinematic alignment, iKA) in a robotically assisted TKA cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients with end stage osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled. The first group (n = 40) received conventional adjusted MA TKA. The second group (n = 40) received robotically assisted adjusted MA TKA. The third group (n = 40) received robotically assisted iKA TKA. All patients received cruciate retaining Triathlon TKA with a uniform surgery protocol. The three groups were matched for age, sex, BMI and preoperative osteoarthritis. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative clinical outcomes were documented with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: Comparison of OKS between the MA groups indicated no significant difference (p = 0.223) between the conventional TKA (group 1; 40.2 ± 5.9) and robotically assisted TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) 1 year postoperatively. Comparison of OKS between the robotically assisted groups indicated no significant difference (p = 0.078) between the MA TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) and iKA TKA (group 3; 44.8 ± 3.5). Comparison of conventional MA TKA (group 1; 40.3 ± 6.0) with robotically assisted iKA TKA (group 3; 44.8 ± 3.5) indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the introduction of both patient-specific alignment and robotically assisted surgery improve clinical outcomes in TKA surgery. When access to robotic assistance is available, performing patient-specific alignment should be the objective.
INTRODUCTION: Robotically assisted surgery was introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to increase the precision of implant positioning and optimize clinical outcomes. However, the target implant position or alignment is debated. The aim of this study was twofold: to compare clinical outcomes of conventional TKA vs. robotically assisted TKA in an adjusted mechanically aligned (MA) TKA series, and to analyze the clinical effects of introducing patient-specific alignment (inverse kinematic alignment, iKA) in a robotically assisted TKA cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients with end stage osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled. The first group (n = 40) received conventional adjusted MA TKA. The second group (n = 40) received robotically assisted adjusted MA TKA. The third group (n = 40) received robotically assisted iKA TKA. All patients received cruciate retaining Triathlon TKA with a uniform surgery protocol. The three groups were matched for age, sex, BMI and preoperative osteoarthritis. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative clinical outcomes were documented with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: Comparison of OKS between the MA groups indicated no significant difference (p = 0.223) between the conventional TKA (group 1; 40.2 ± 5.9) and robotically assisted TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) 1 year postoperatively. Comparison of OKS between the robotically assisted groups indicated no significant difference (p = 0.078) between the MA TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) and iKA TKA (group 3; 44.8 ± 3.5). Comparison of conventional MA TKA (group 1; 40.3 ± 6.0) with robotically assisted iKA TKA (group 3; 44.8 ± 3.5) indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the introduction of both patient-specific alignment and robotically assisted surgery improve clinical outcomes in TKA surgery. When access to robotic assistance is available, performing patient-specific alignment should be the objective.
Authors: Alisdair Gilmour; Angus D MacLean; Philip J Rowe; Matthew S Banger; Iona Donnelly; Bryn G Jones; Mark J G Blyth Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: C Rivière; F Iranpour; E Auvinet; S Howell; P-A Vendittoli; J Cobb; S Parratte Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Johannes Cip; Florian Obwegeser; Thomas Benesch; Christian Bach; Paul Ruckenstuhl; Arno Martin Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.757
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: Bandar M Hetaimish; M Moin Khan; Nicole Simunovic; Hatem H Al-Harbi; Mohit Bhandari; Paul K Zalzal Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 4.757