Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is not associated with improved accuracy in implant position and alignment compared to conventional instrumentation in the execution of a preoperative digital plan

Christian Nogalo; Luca Farinelli; Amit Meena; Fabrizio di Maria; Elisabeth Abermann; Christian Fink

doi:10.1002/jeo2.12019

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is not associated with improved accuracy in implant position and alignment compared to conventional instrumentation in the execution of a preoperative digital plan

J Exp Orthop. 2024 Apr 2;11(2):e12019. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.12019. eCollection 2024 Apr.

Authors

Christian Nogalo^{1

2}, Luca Farinelli^{2

3}, Amit Meena^{2

4}, Fabrizio di Maria^{2

5}, Elisabeth Abermann^{1

2}, Christian Fink^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Gelenkpunkt-Sports and Joint Surgery FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence Innsbruck Austria.
² Research Unit for Orthopaedic Sports Medicine and Injury Prevention (OSMI) UMIT TIROL-Private University For Health Sciences and Health Technology Hall in Tirol Austria.
³ Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences Clinical Orthopaedics Ancona Italy.
⁴ Division of Orthopedics Shalby Hospital Jaipur India.
⁵ Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, Section of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Policlinico "Rodolico-San Marco" University of Catania Catania Italy.

Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate if robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RO-TKA) results in improved accuracy compared to conventional TKA (CO-TKA) with respect to alignment and component positioning executing a preoperative digital plan. The secondary objective was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the two groups at 6 months of follow-up (FU).

Methods: Patients who underwent primary TKA using the concept of constitutional alignment were identified from the database. Each patient underwent preoperative digital planning as well as postoperative evaluation of the preoperative plan (alignment and component position) using mediCAD® software (Hectec GmbH). Two groups were formed: (i) The RO-TKA group (n = 30) consisted of patients who underwent TKA with a robotic surgical system (ROSA®, Zimmer Biomet) and (ii) the CO-TKA group (n = 67) consisted of patients who underwent TKA with conventional instrumentation. To assess accuracy, all qualitative variables were analysed using the χ ² test. Tegner activity scale, Oxford Knee Score and visual analogue scale were assessed preop and at 6-month FU. To assess differences between the two groups, a 2 × 2 repeated measures analysis of variance was performed.

Results: There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in the accuracy of alignment as well as tibial and femoral component position between the two groups. At the 6-month FU, there was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in PROMs between the two groups.

Conclusion: While robotic TKA may have some potential advantages, no significant difference was found between robotic and conventional TKA with respect to limb alignment, clinical outcomes and component positioning.

Level of evidence: Level III.

Keywords: component positioning; conventional TKA; preoperative digital planning; robotic TKA; short‐term outcome.