Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2024; 37(02): 135-141
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760391
Original Article

Accuracy of Advanced Active Robot for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Study

Han-Jun Lee
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
,
Kwan Kyu Park
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
,
Yong-Beom Park 
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Gwangmyeong-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
,
Sung Wook Choi
4   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea
,
Bong-Oh Kim
5   R & D center, Curexo Inc., Seoul, South Korea
,
Seong Hwan Kim 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was funded by CUREXO Inc. and the manufacturer of CUVIS-Joint.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Although the accuracy of other types of robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been assessed in cadaveric studies, no investigations have been performed to evaluate this newly advanced active robotic system. Therefore, the authors aimed to analyze the accuracy of bone resection in terms of thickness and alignment in a cadaveric study. Three cadaveric specimens (six knees) and an active robotic system (CUVIS Joint, CUREXO) were used in the study. Three surgeons with different experiences in robotic TKAs performed this cadaveric study using the same robotic protocol with two different implant designs. The thickness and angle of bone resection planes obtained from the optical tracking system and the difference between resection planes and the planning data were assessed to determine accuracy. With respect to the overall resection accuracy compared to the plan, the cutting depth accuracy was within 1.0 mm mean of root mean square (RMS), and the resection angle accuracy in terms of sagittal, coronal, and axial planes was within 1.0 degree mean RMS. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between the planned and measured values in terms of the resection angles and cutting thickness. The hip–knee–ankle angle at postoperative evaluation was 0.7 degrees ± 0.7 degrees (RMS 1.0 degrees). This in vivo study suggests that the use of this newly advanced active robotic system for TKA demonstrates a high degree of accuracy in terms of resection thickness and alignment. This finding supports the clinical application of this advanced robotic system.

Level of Evidence Cadaveric study, Level V.

Keyword

Knee - arthroplasty - robot - accuracy - cadaver

Ethical Approval

The study did not include research with animals or living human participants and was declared exempt by the local institutional review board.




Publication History

Received: 01 June 2022

Accepted: 15 November 2022

Article published online:
13 January 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jang S, Shin WC, Song MK, Han HS, Lee MC, Ro DH. Which orally administered antithrombotic agent is most effective for preventing venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty? A propensity score-matching analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res 2021; 33 (01) 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lee JK, Lee KB, Kim JI, Park GT, Cho YC. Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis even using low-molecular-weight heparin after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2021; 33 (01) 29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schwarzkopf R, Meftah M, Marwin SE, Zabat MA, Muir JM, Lamb IR. The use of imageless navigation to quantify cutting error in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2021; 33 (01) 43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jung SH, Cho MR, Song SK. Appropriateness of the use of navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2020; 12 (03) 324-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pawar P, Naik L, Sahu D, Bagaria V. Comparative study of pinless navigation system versus conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2021; 13 (03) 358-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Matsuda S, Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Iwamoto Y. Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 127-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (09) 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tanifuji O, Mochizuki T, Yamagiwa H. et al. Comparison of post-operative three-dimensional and two-dimensional evaluation of component position for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2021; 33 (01) 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yu S, Siow M, Odeh K, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf R, Iorio R. Periarticular soft tissue envelope size and postoperative wound complications following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7s): S249-S252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Batailler C, Hannouche D, Benazzo F, Parratte S. Concepts and techniques of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: the ROSA knee system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (12) 2049-2058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. 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: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (07) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Casper M, Mitra R, Khare R. et al. Accuracy assessment of a novel image-free handheld robot for total knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon) 2018; 23 (01) 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY. et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (03) 239-250
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Innocenti B, Bori E. Robotics in orthopaedic surgery: why, what and how?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (12) 2035-2042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN, Tay DK, Yeo SJ. THINK surgical TSolution-One® (Robodoc) total knee arthroplasty. SICOT J 2017; 3: 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Stulberg BN, Zadzilka JD, Kreuzer S. et al. Safe and effective use of active robotics for TKA: early results of a multicenter study. J Orthop 2021; 26: 119-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 St Mart JP, Goh EL. The current state of robotics in total knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2021; 6 (04) 270-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bautista M, Manrique J, Hozack WJ. Robotics in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (07) 600-606
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parratte S, Price AJ, Jeys LM, Jackson WF, Clarke HD. Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a Cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (11) 2799-2803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sires JD, Craik JD, Wilson CJ. Accuracy of Bone Resection in MAKO total knee robotic-assisted surgery. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (07) 745-748
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Yamamura K, Inori F, Konishi S. Evaluation of the accuracy of resected bone thickness based on patient-specific instrumentation during total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (09) 1583-1590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Levy YD, An VVG, Shean CJW, Groen FR, Walker PM, Bruce WJM. The accuracy of bony resection from patient-specific guides during total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (06) 1678-1685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Koulalis D, O'Loughlin PF, Plaskos C, Kendoff D, Pearle AD. Adjustable cutting blocks for computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a cadaver study. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (05) 807-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kendoff DO, Moreau-Gaudry A, Plaskos C, Granchi C, Sculco TP, Pearle AD. A navigated 8-in-1 femoral cutting guide for total knee arthroplasty technical development and cadaveric evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (01) 138-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Clark TC, Schmidt FH. Robot-assisted navigation versus computer-assisted navigation in primary total knee arthroplasty: efficiency and accuracy. ISRN Orthop 2013; 2013: 794827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 van der List JP, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle AD. Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (11) 3482-3495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sires JD, Wilson CJ. CT validation of intraoperative implant position and knee alignment as determined by the MAKO total knee arthroplasty system. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (10) 1133-1137
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Seidenstein A, Birmingham M, Foran J, Ogden S. Better accuracy and reproducibility of a new robotically-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (03) 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar