Minimum reporting criteria for robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty studies: alignment and balancing techniques should both be defined

Mechanisms of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty and current treatment options

Purpose

Primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment which is increasing in use for both elderly and younger patients. With the overall increasing life span of the general population, the rate of revision TKA is projected to increase significantly over the coming decades. Analyses from the national joint registry of England and Wales support this prediction with an increase in primary TKA of 117% and an increase in revision TKA of 332% being forecast by 2030. Bone loss presents a challenge in revision TKA so an understanding of the aetiology and principles behind this is essential for the surgeon undertaking revision. The purpose of this article is to review the causes of bone loss in revision TKA, discuss the mechanisms of each cause and discuss the possible treatment options.

Methods

The Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification and zonal classification of bone loss are commonly used in assessing bone loss in pre-operative planning and will be used in this review. The recent literature was searched to find advantages and limitations of each commonly used method to address bone loss at revision TKA. Studies with the highest number or patients and longest follow-up period were selected as significant. Search terms were: "aetiology of bone loss", "revision total knee arthroplasty", "management of bone loss".

Results

Methods for managing bone loss have traditionally been cement augmentation, impaction bone grafting, bulk structural bone graft and stemmed implants with metal augments. No single technique was found to be superior. Megaprostheses have a role as a salvage procedure when the bone loss is deemed to be too significant for reconstruction. Metaphyseal cones and sleeves are a newer treatments with promising medium to long term outcomes.

Conclusion

Bone loss encountered at revision TKA presents a significant challenge. No single technique currently has clear superiority treatment should be based on a sound understanding of the underlying principles.

Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques employed, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) with manual TKA (mTKA) and the associated learning curve. Searches of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Search terms included "robotic", "knee" and "arthroplasty". The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for RATKA and those comparing the component position accuracy, alignment and balancing techniques, functional outcomes, or complications with mTKA. There were 198 articles identified, following full text screening, 16 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and reported the learning curve of rTKA (n=5), component positioning accuracy (n=6), alignment and balancing techniques (n=7), functional outcomes (n=7), or complications (n=5). Two studies reported the learning curve using CUSUM analysis to establish an inflexion point for proficiency which ranged from 7 to 11 cases and there was no learning curve for component positioning accuracy. The meta-analysis showed a significantly lower difference between planned component position and implanted component position, and the spread was narrower for RATKA compared with the mTKA group (Femur coronal: mean 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.55, p<0.00001; Tibia coronal: mean 1.56, 95% CI 1.32-1.81, p<0.00001). Three studies reported using different alignment and balancing techniques between mTKA and RATKA, two studies used the same for both group and two studies did not state the methods used in their RATKA groups. RATKA resulted in better Knee Society Score compared to mTKA in the short-to-mid-term follow up (95%CI [- 1.23,  - 0.51], p=0.004). There was no difference in arthrofibrosis, superficial and deep infection, wound dehiscence, or overall complication rates. RATKA demonstrated improved accuracy of component positioning and patient-reported outcomes. The learning curve of RATKA for operating time was between 7 and 11 cases. Future well-powered studies on RATKAs should report on the knee alignment and balancing techniques utilised to enable better comparisons on which techniques maximise patient outcomes.Level of evidence III.