Robotic-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Technology Provides a Repeatable and Reproducible Method of Assessing Soft Tissue Balance

Abstract

Soft-tissue balancing is an important factor in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with 30 to 50% of TKA revisions attributed to technical operative factors including soft-tissue balancing. Robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA) offers opportunities for improved soft-tissue balancing methods. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of ligamentous laxity assessments during RATKA using a digital tensioner.

Three experienced RATKA surgeons assessed preresection and trialing phases of 12 human cadaveric knees with varying degrees of arthritis. Ligamentous laxity was assessed with manual varus and valgus stresses in extension and flexion, with a digital tensioner providing feedback on the change of laxity displacement. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used to determine the repeatability within a single surgeon and reproducibility between the three surgeons.

The results showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility in ligamentous laxity assessment during RATKA. Surgeons had excellent repeatability for preresection and trialing assessments, with median ICC values representing excellent reproducibility between surgeons. Surgeons were repeatable within 1 or 1.5 mm for preresection and trialing assessments. On average, the variation within a surgeon was 0.33 ± 0.26 mm during preresection and 0.29 ± 0.28 mm during trialing. When comparing surgeons to each other, they were reproducible within an average of 0.69 ± 0.33 mm for preresection and 0.65 ± 0.31 mm for trialing.

This study demonstrated the reliability of robotic-assisted soft-tissue balancing techniques, providing control over ligamentous laxity assessments, and potentially leading to better patient outcomes. The digital tensioner used in this study provided excellent repeatability and reproducibility in ligamentous laxity assessment during RATKA, highlighting the potential benefits of incorporating robotics in TKA procedures.

Keywords

orthopaedic surgery - adult reconstruction - total knee arthroplasty - Mako

Publication History

Received: 24 June 2023

Accepted: 18 December 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 December 2023

Article published online:
04 March 2024

• References

• 1 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E. et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 45-51
• 2 Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (09) 2663-2668
• 3 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
• 4 Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE. Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 5: 89-94
• 5 Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ. Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 45-50
• 6 Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 7-13
• 7 Lombardi Jr AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11 Supple A) 101-104
• 8 Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Instability following total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 2011; 7 (03) 273-278
• 9 Parratte S, Pagnano MW. Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (01) 184-194
• 10 Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J, Fick DP, Khan RJK, Robertson BW. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3854-3860
• 11 Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Jerry GJ, Elson LC, Anderson CR. Increased satisfaction after total knee replacement using sensor-guided technology. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (10) 1333-1338
• 12 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
• 13 Aunan E, Kibsgård T, Clarke-Jenssen J, Röhrl SM. A new method to measure ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty: laxity measurements in 100 knees. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132 (08) 1173-1181
• 14 Babazadeh S, Stoney JD, Lim K, Choong PF. The relevance of ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty: how important is it? A systematic review of the literature. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2009; 1 (02) e26
• 15 Fary C, McKenzie D, Steiger R. Reproducibility of an intraoperative pressure sensor in total knee replacement. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21 (22) 7679
• 16 Krackow KA, Mihalko WM. The effect of medial release on flexion and extension gaps in cadaveric knees: implications for soft-tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Am J Knee Surg 1999; 12 (04) 222-228
• 17 Kwak DS, Kong CG, Han SH, Kim DH, In Y. Development of a pneumatic tensioning device for gap measurement during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (03) 188-192
• 18 Whiteside LA, Saeki K, Mihalko WM. Functional medical ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; (380) 45-57
• 19 Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16 (04) 494-502
• 20 Koch GG. Intraclass correlation coefficient. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, eds. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1982;4:213–217
• 21 Fleiss JL, Levin B, Myunghee CP. Chapter 18: The measurement of interrater agreement. 3rd ed. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2003. pp. 598-626
• 22 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M. et al. Does the robotic arm and preoperative CT planning help with 3D intraoperative total knee arthroplasty planning?. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (08) 742-749
• 23 Mahoney O, Kinsey T, Sodhi N. et al. Improved component placement accuracy with robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2022; 35 (03) 337-344
• 24 Kayani B, Tahmassebi J, Ayuob A, Konan S, Oussedik S, Haddad FS. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B [phone]
• 25 Hampp EL, Scholl LY, Westrich G, Mont MA. Can the use of robotic technology reduce surgical variability and mental exertion when performing total knee arthroplasty? ISTA 31st Annual Congress, London, United Kingdom. October 10–13, 2018
• 26 Bottros J, Gad B, Krebs V, Barsoum WK. Gap balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (4 Suppl 1) 11-15
• 27 Mihalko WM, Whiteside LA, Krackow KA. Comparison of ligament-balancing techniques during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (Suppl 4): 132-135
• 28 Kanamiya T, Whiteside LA, Nakamura T, Mihalko WM, Steiger J, Naito M. Ranawat Award paper. Effect of selective lateral ligament release on stability in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 24-31
• 29 Yoshihara Y, Arai Y, Nakagawa S. et al. Assessing coronal laxity in extension and flexion at a minimum of 10 years after primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (08) 2512-2516