Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years
- 212 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Robotic Conventional Long-term result
Compliance with ethical standards
The retrospective randomized study was approved by institutional review board of Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital and analysis was performed
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 19.Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
- 20.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinical important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840Google Scholar
- 38.Saragaglia D, Sigwalt L, Gaillot J, Morin V, Rubens-Duval B, Pailhé R (2017) Results with eight and a half years average follow-up on two hundred and eight e-motion FP® knee prostheses, fitted using computer navigation for knee osteoarthritis in patients with over ten degrees genu varum. Int Orthop 42(4):799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Jacofsky DJ, Mont MA (2018) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641729
- 45.Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS (2018) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 100-B(7):930–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH (2009) Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38(2 Suppl):32–36Google Scholar