Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(10): 1064-1075
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701440
Original Article

Robot-Assisted versus Conventional Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Radiological and Functional Outcomes

Brian Zhaojie Chin
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
,
Sharon Si Heng Tan
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
,
Kasia Chen Xi Chua
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
,
Gideon Richard Budiono
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
,
Nicholas Li-Xun Syn
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
,
Gavin Kane O'Neill
1   University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The study aims to provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis comparing radiological and functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using either robotic assistance or conventional methods from the latest assemblage of evidence. This study was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. All studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane that reported radiological and functional outcomes after TKA or UKA with either robotic or conventional methods were included in the review. Selected endpoints for random effects, pairwise meta-analysis included operative details, radiological outcomes (mechanical axis, component angle deviation, and outliers), and functional outcomes (American Knee Society Score, Knee Society Function Score, revision and complication rate, range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index). A total of 23 studies comprising 2,765 knees were included from the initial search. Robot-assisted TKA and UKA were associated with significantly better component angle alignment accuracy (low-to-high quality evidence) at the cost of significantly greater operation time. Robot-assisted UKA was found to have significantly better short-term functional outcomes compared with conventional UKA (moderate-to-high quality evidence). Robot-assisted TKA, however, did not exhibit significantly better short- and midterm subjective knee outcome scores compared with its conventional counterpart (high-quality evidence). Robot-assisted TKA and UKA were associated with nonstatistically significant improved ROM and lesser rates of revision. Robot-assisted total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to better radiological outcomes, with no significant differences in mid- and long-term functional outcomes compared with conventional methods for the former. Larger prospective studies with mid- and long-term outcomes are required to further substantiate findings from the present study.

Keywords

robot-assisted - conventional - total knee arthroplasty - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - functional outcomes - radiological outcomes

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 21 May 2019

Accepted: 13 December 2019

Article published online:
17 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Hansen EN, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Lonner JH. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large United States databases. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (08) 1617-1625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 2014; 21 (01) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1437-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE. Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it?. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (6, Suppl): 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A. et al. Surgeon's experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (07) 2074-2080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kwon OR, Kang KT, Son J, Suh DS, Baek C, Koh YG. Importance of joint line preservation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: finite element analysis. J Orthop Res 2017; 35 (02) 347-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Victor J. Optimising position and stability in total knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2017; 2 (05) 215-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Swan JD, Stoney JD, Choong PF. Joint line position correlates with function after primary total knee replacement: a randomised controlled trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (09) 1223-1231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S. et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 837167-837167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Meloni MC, Hoedemaeker RW, Violante B, Mazzola C. Soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2014; 2 (01) 37-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
  • 12 Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (299) 153-156 PMID: 8119010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (08) 970-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S. et al. Knee replacement. Lancet 2012; 379 (9823): 1331-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fu J, Wang Y, Li X. et al. Robot-assisted vs. conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthopade 2018; 47 (12) 1009-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mannan A, Vun J, Lodge C, Eyre-Brook A, Jones S. Increased precision of coronal plane outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon 2018; 16 (04) 237-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ren Y, Cao S, Wu J, Weng X, Feng B. Efficacy and reliability of active robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J 2019; 95 (1121): 125-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Canetti R, Batailler C, Bankhead C, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (12) 1765-1771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rodriguez F, Harris S, Jakopec M. et al. Robotic clinical trials of uni-condylar arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot 2005; 1 (04) 20-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wong J, Murtaugh T, Lakra A, Cooper HJ, Shah RP, Geller JA. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee replacement offers no early advantage over conventional unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2303-2308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hansen DC, Kusuma SK, Palmer RM, Harris KB. Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (09) 1784-1789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Liow MH, Xia Z, Wong MK, Tay KJ, Yeo SJ, Chin PL. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the joint line and mechanical axis. A prospective randomised study. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2373-2377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Song EK, Seon JK, Park SJ, Jung WB, Park HW, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (07) 1069-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 118-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 2002; 9 (03) 173-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jeon SW, Kim KI, Song SJ. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty does not improve long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (08) 1656-1661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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
  • 29 MacCallum KP, Danoff JR, Geller JA. Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016; 26 (01) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (04) 1232-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (07) 1054-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yang HY, Seon JK, Shin YJ, Lim HA, Song EK. Robotic total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate-retaining implant: a 10-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Surg 2017; 9 (02) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ollivier M, Parratte S, Lunebourg A, Viehweger E, Argenson JN. The John Insall Award: no functional benefit after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed with patient-specific instrumentation: a randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (01) 60-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017; 6 (11) 631-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. the 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cho KJ, Seon JK, Jang WY. et al. Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years. Int Orthop 2018; 43 (06) 1345-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rauck RC, Blevins JL, Cross MB. component placement accuracy in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is improved with robotic-assisted surgery: will it have an effect on outcomes?. HSS J 2018; 14 (02) 211-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lonner JH, Fillingham YA. Pros and cons: a balanced view of robotics in knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (07) 2007-2013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Young SW, Mutu-Grigg J, Frampton CM, Cullen J. Does speed matter? Revision rates and functional outcomes in TKA in relation to duration of surgery. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (07) 1473-1477.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Netravali NA, Shen F, Park Y, Bargar WL. A perspective on robotic assistance for knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 970703
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (08) 1033-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN. Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (05) 618-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ensini A, Catani F, Leardini A, Romagnoli M, Giannini S. Alignments and clinical results in conventional and navigated total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 457 (457) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kim SM, Park YS, Ha CW, Lim SJ, Moon YW. Robot-assisted implantation improves the precision of component position in minimally invasive TKA. Orthopedics 2012; 35 (09) e1334-e1339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dutton AQ, Yeo SJ. Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl 2 Pt 1): 116-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hasegawa M, Miyazaki S, Yamaguchi T, Wakabayashi H, Sudo A. Comparison of midterm outcomes of minimally invasive computer-assisted vs minimally invasive jig-based total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 43-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Lüring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86 (05) 682-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (04) 1132-1141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Karunaratne S, Duan M, Pappas E. et al. The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (06) 1283-1295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar