[Computer-assisted systems in total knee arthroplasty. Useful aid or only additional costs]

[Three-dimensional individual joint reconstruction through the Mako robotic arm-assisted surgical technique : Possibilities and limitations of the surgical technique]

BACKGROUND

Although knee arthroplasty represents a very successful treatment for osteoarthritis or joint destruction, a relevant number of patients is still not completely satisfied with the outcome. Higher satisfaction and faster rehabilitation seem to be achievable through patient-individualized alignment of the prosthesis and especially through reproducible robotic-assisted implantation.

IMPORTANCE OF ROBOTICS

The topic of robotics in orthopedics and especially in knee endoprosthesis is not new and began in the 1990s with the Robodoc system. The resurgence of robotics with new systems can be referred to as an innovation in the orthopedic operating room. Interest in this has risen significantly, not only among surgeons, but especially among patients, primarily because it seems to offer better joint function and patient satisfaction, as well as faster rehabilitation.

Comparative Cost Analysis of Four Different Computer-Assisted Technologies to Implant a Total Knee Arthroplasty over Conventional Instrumentation

Several computer-assisted technologies, such as navigation and robotics, have been introduced to Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) in order to increase surgical precision and reduce complications. However, these technologies are often criticized due to the increased costs and effort associated with them; however, comparative data are missing. The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences in intraoperative workflows and the related perioperative cost-profiles of four current computer-assisted technologies, used to implant a TKA, in order to gain a comparison to conventional instrumentation. For the cost analysis, additional preoperative imaging and instruments, increased operating room (OR) and planning-time, and expenditures for technical support of the equipment and disposals were calculated, in comparison to conventional TKA, for (1) standard computer-navigation, (2) patient specific instruments (PSI), (3) image-based robotic assistance, and (4) imageless robotic assistance. Workflows at four expert centers which use these technologies were reviewed by an independent observer. The total cost calculation was based on a 125 TKA per year unit in Switzerland. Computer-navigation resulted in 14 min (+23%) increased surgery time and, overall, USD 650 in additional costs. PSI technology saved 5 min (8%) OR time but it created USD 1520 in expenditures for imaging and disposals. The image-based robotic system was the most expensive technology; it created overall additional costs of USD 2600, which predominately resulted from technical support, disposals, the CT-Scan, and 14 min of increased OR time. The imageless robotic assistance resulted in the largest increase in OR-time, as it resulted in an additional 25 min (+42%) on average. Overall, additional costs of USD 1530 were calculated. Every one of the assistive technologies in this study increased the total cost of TKA when compared to a conventional technique, and the most important variables, related to cost, were technical support and additional disposables. The longer surgical times and additional surgical trays required for the techniques had a marginal effect on overall costs. This comparative cost analysis gives valuable information for future efforts to calculate the real costs of these technologies and the subsequent return on investment of each technique.

Robotics improves alignment accuracy and reduces early revision rates for UKA in the hands of low-volume UKA surgeons

PURPOSE

It is known that in uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) low-volume surgeons have a higher complication and revision rate than high-volume surgeons. Further, robotic-assisted UKA leads to lower early revision rate as well as fewer limb and joint line outliers compared to conventional UKA. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outliers' and revision rate of low-volume UKA surgeons with different robotic systems at short-term follow-up.

METHODS

In this case-control study, 103 robotic-assisted UKAs were included. The procedures were performed between 2016 and 2019 from two low-volume UKA surgeons with an imageless (IL) (63 patients) and image-based (IB) (40 patients) robotic system. Alignment outliers, joint line (JL) reconstruction, complication and revision rates of the two different robotic systems were analyzed. The minimum follow-up was two years. Outliers were defined as a postoperative valgus malalignment greater than 182°. The surgery time for all procedures was evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall revision rate was 3.9% (4 of 103). Two occurred in the IB group (5.0%) and two in the IL group (3.2%). No valgus malalignment outliers were observed in both groups. The mean JL was not distalized by more than 2 mm in both groups (IL: 1.3 ± 1.6 mm vs. IB: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, p value 0.08). The IL procedures had a significant lower mean surgery time (55 ± 13 min vs. 68 ± 14, p value 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted UKA is a safe procedure in the hand of low-volume UKA surgeons. Robotic-assisted UKA minimizes overcorrection into valgus mal-alignment. Low revision rates are observed at short-term follow-up for robotic-assisted UKA. The choice of the different robotic systems has no impact on the outcome.

PSI kinematic versus non-PSI mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study

PURPOSE

Kinematic alignment in TKA is supposed to restore function by aligning the components to the premorbid flexion-extension axis instead of altering the joint line and natural kinematic axes of the knee. The purpose of this study was to compare mechanically aligned TKA to kinematic alignment.

METHODS

In this study, 200 patients underwent TKA and were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 100 TKAs were performed using kinematic alignment with custom-made cutting guides in order to complete cruciate-retaining TKA; the other 100 patients underwent TKA that was manually performed using mechanical alignment. The WOMAC and combined Knee Society Score (KSS), as well as radiological alignment, were determined as outcome parameters at the 12-month endpoint.

RESULTS

WOMAC and KSS significantly improved in both groups. There was a significant difference in both scores between groups in favour of kinematic alignment. Although the kinematic alignment group demonstrated significantly better overall results, more outliers with poor outcomes were also seen in this group. A correlation between post-operative alignment deviation from the initial plan and poor outcomes was also noted. The most important finding of this study is that applying kinematic alignment in TKA achieves comparable results to mechanical alignment in TKA. This study also shows that restoring the premorbid flexion-extension axis of the knee joint leads to better overall functional results.

CONCLUSION

Kinematic alignment is a favourable technique for TKA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The kinematic alignment idea might be a considerable alternative to mechanical alignment in the future.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

[Custom-fit kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty using PSI. The story of ShapeMatch technology]

BACKGROUND

The story of ShapeMatch® custom-fit cutting guides for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is special compared to other available techniques. First, it was the first such patient-specific instrument (PSI) on the market. Second, the underlying philosophy of kinematic alignment is unique compared to other competitors. Finally, it is the only PSI technique that has been withdrawn from the market.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The objective of this paper is to summarize the history of the ShapeMatch® technology and to review the current literature regarding clinical evidence for kinematically aligned TKA.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the recent literature, faster rehabilitation, better knee function and higher patient satisfaction are described for kinematically aligned TKA compared to conventional alignment. However, there is also evidence for inaccuracies by using the PSI technology as a possible cause of treatment failures. Due to those problems, this technology was recalled from the market. As an alternative method to achieve kinematic alignment in TKA, manual as well as computer-assisted techniques are currently under development and are discussed here.