Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Junren Zhang1*ORCID iD 0000-0003-4714-2754, Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou1, Nathan Ng1, Paul Gaston1, Philip M. Simpson1, Gavin J. Macpherson1, James T. Patton1, Nicholas D. Clement1

1grid.418716.d0000 0001 0709 1919Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA UK*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 28 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageSystematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Knee; Arthroplasty; Robotic; Knee alignment; Knee balancing techniques; Outcome; Complications

Introduction

Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with improved accuracy of prosthesis implantation, and may improve outcomes and implant survival1, 4, 15, 16. The MAKO robotic-arm assisted TKA (RATKA) system (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA), in contrast to other robotic systems, is a “semi-active” system that allows the surgeon to interact with the robot during bone preparation, implant alignment and balancing of the knee11. These are important surgeon-controlled variables that affect patient outcomes, implant stability and long-term survivorship5, 45, 53.

Recent systematic reviews comparing robotic TKA with manual TKA (mTKA) have not reported the techniques used to align and balance the knee, which may influence the associated functional outcome and survival of the prosthesis9. Furthermore, the only systematic review by Batailler et al. to analyse RATKA in isolation, excluding active systems, did not undertake meta-analysis for the outcomes assessed2. Reviews by Batailler et al. and Kayani et al. critically assessed outcomes, but pooled analyses was not conducted and limits interpretation of their data2, 17. Cadaveric cases were also included in these reviews, which may not reflect clinical results. Four recent meta-analysis have analysed the effects of robotic TKA on accuracy and functional outcomes when compared to mTKA, but most of the studies included were “fully active” systems1, 7, 39, 43. Only seven (31%) of 22 studies reported by Agarwal et al., one (10%) of ten reported by Chin et al., seven of 18 (39%) reported by Onggo et al. and none of the of seven studies reported by Ren et al. were “semi-active” robotic-arm assisted TKA (RATKA)1, 7, 39, 43. Therefore, the advantages of RATKA compared to mTKA is not clear due to the heterogeneity of systems included in these studies. Mancino et al. compared the rate of complications, but again also included mostly active systems in their review, which have been associated with a greater rate of complications compared to semi-active systems29, 40.

The authors hypothesized that RATKA improves accuracy and patient-reported outcomes and has a lower complication rate compared to mTKA. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques employed, patient-reported outcomes and complications of RATKA with mTKA and the associated learning curve.

Methods

A search of Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar was performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The study was registered on the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID no. CRD42020218706).

All identified article titles and abstracts were screened independently by three authors (JZ, WSN and NDC), with those meeting the inclusion criteria screened further by full-text review. On occasions when it was not clear from the abstract if studies were of relevance, the full text of the article was reviewed. Unanimous consensus was met on the inclusion of proposed studies for full text review amongst the authors (JZ, WSN and NDC). Full text studies were further evaluated against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The reference lists of included studies were reviewed to ensure no other relevant studies were overlooked.

Search terms and criteria for inclusion

Search terms included (‘robot’ [All fields] OR ‘robotic’ [All fields] OR ‘robotic surgical procedure’ [MeSH terms] with all entry terms and ‘robotic arm assisted’[All fields]) and (‘total knee’ [MeSH terms], OR ‘arthroplasty, replacement, total knee’ [MeSH terms] OR ‘arthroplasty’[MeSH terms]). A search limit for articles published from 2000 to 2020 was applied. A single search of PubMed and Medline yielded 52 abstracts. Two searches of Google Scholar using the search terms (a) all in title: robot total knee and (b) all in title: robotic total knee yielded 146 articles in total. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles studying robotic total knee arthroplasty and reporting on functional outcomes or patient satisfaction or accuracy of component positioning or learning curve or complications. Studies were excluded if they were case reports, review articles, conference abstracts, non-clinical studies or were not available in the English language. For the purposes of this review, there was a focus on “semi-active” robotic systems and, therefore, “fully active” robotic systems were excluded from analysis.

Data extraction

The included studies were evaluated for the authors, year of publication, title, where it was published, study design (prospective or retrospective), age of patients, number of patients, follow-up (if applicable), the type of implant used and depending on the aims for the study: patient satisfaction, functional outcome, component accuracy, alignment and balancing techniques, complications and learning curve. In addition, the main conclusion from each study was also recorded. If two studies reported on the same cohort of patients, only the latter more complete cohort would be included in the current analysis.

Outcome measures

The primary objectives were to report the learning curve, accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques, functional outcomes and complications within the included studies. Secondary objectives included presenting the demographic data and implants used across the included articles.

Quality assessment

Using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, all included publications were reviewed independently for potential risk of bias by three authors (JZ, SN, NDC). The assessment tool uses 14 questions to enable allocation of a score to each article (poor, fair or good). If there was disagreement regarding the scoring of a study, consensus was met after discussion amongst both assessors.

Statistical analysis

Simple descriptive analysis was performed for (a) learning curve of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty and for studies comparing (b) the accuracy of component positioning, (c) alignment and balancing techniques, (d) patient reported functional outcomes and (e) complications between robotic-arm assisted and manual total knee arthroplasty. Data were extracted from studies comparing (a) the accuracy of component positioning, (b) patient-reported functional outcomes (Knee Society Scores (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)) and (c) complications (Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), superficial and deep infections, and wound dehiscence) between RATKA and mTKA to enable meta-analysis to be undertaken for these outcomes. The manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), superficial and deep infections, pin site fractures and wound dehiscence were statistically assessed using Peto and the odds ratio were presented as the effect measure. The accuracy of component positioning, KSS, and the WOMAC scores were assessed using inverse variance and the mean difference was presented as the effect measure. For each outcome variable, 95% confidence intervals were presented. Heterogeneity among the studies were assessed using the χ2 test and I2. A fixed effect model was applied when I2 < 50%, and a random effects model when I2 > 50%. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in cases in which trials have no event in one arm or another. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

Results

There were 198 articles identified in the initial search of databases and reference lists. After initial screening of titles and abstracts 31 articles met the inclusion criteria for review. On full text screening a further 13 studies were excluded from analysis: five represented articles assessing “fully active” robots8, 13, 27, 46, 55; six articles did not have a mTKA control group21, 33, 37, 41, 48, 56; four were non-clinical studies (Fig. 1)12, 24, 35, 42. A list of the 16 studies which met the inclusion criteria are illustrated in Table 14, 18–20, 23, 25, 28, 30–32, 36, 44, 49–52. Nine studies were identified from Medline and PubMed, and seven additional studies from Google Scholar (Table 1). The year of publication ranged from 2017 to 2020. Of the 16 published studies identified 11 were prospective and the remainder five were retrospective. There were no randomized controlled trials identified (Table 1, Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Complete PRISMA flow diagram showing the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion process
Table 1. Studies included in the systematic review according to how they were identified, when they were published, design, patient demographics, follow up and type of implant
AuthorsYearSearchDesignPatients (n =)AgeF/U (months)ImplantRobotic-arm
Bhimani et al.42020GSRetrospective cohorts140 RATKA vs 127 mTKA65.4 vs 66.61.5Triathlon PSStryker Mako
Kayani et al.182018PM/MLProspective cohorts30 RATKA vs 30 mTKA68.5 vs 69.9?Triathlon PSStryker Mako
Kayani et al.192018PM/MLProspective cohorts40 RATKA vs 40 mTKA69.7 vs 71.41Triathlon PS (cemented)Stryker Mako
Kayani et al.202019GSProspective cohorts60 RATKA vs 60 mTKA68.7 vs 67.61Triathlon PS (cemented)Stryker Mako
Klopas et al.232020PM/MLProspective cohorts150 RATKA vs 102 mTKA68 vs 653Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
King et al.252020PM/MLRetrospective cohort202 RATKA vs 290 mTKA68 vs 66RATKA = 15 vs mTKA = 36(Reported as same cemented implants only)Stryker Mako
Mahoney et al.282020PM/MLProspective cohorts143 RATKA vs 86 mTKA64.6 vs 68.512Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
Marchand et al.302017PM/MLProspective cohorts28 RATKA vs 20 mTKA69 vs 676Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
Marchand et al.312019PM/MLProspective cohorts53 RATKA vs 53 mTKA65 vs 6312Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
Marchand et al.322020GSRetrospective cohorts20 RATKA (1 month) vs 60 RATKA (6 months) vs 60 RATKA (1 years) vs 60 mTKA64 vs 64 vs 65 vs 63?Triathlon CR (majority cementless, those done in first month were cemented)Stryker Mako
Naziri et al.362019PM/MLRetrospective cohorts40 RATKA vs 40 mTKA69.5 vs 70.93Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
Savov et al.442019GSProspective cohorts30 RATKA vs 30 mTKA???Stryker Mako
Smith et al.492019GSProspective cohorts120 RATKA vs 103 mTKA68 vs 6612Triathlon PS (majority cementless, 10 in RATKA and 14 in mTKA cemented due to osteoporosis)Stryker Mako
Sodhi et al.502017GSRetrospective cohorts40 RATKA (early) vs 40 RATKA (late) vs 40 mTKANot reportedNot reportedNot reportedStryker Mako
Sultan et al.512019PM/MLProspective cohorts43 RATKA vs 39 mTKA67 vs 661 – 1.5Triathlon CR (cemented)Stryker Mako
Tucking et al.522019GSProspective cohorts40 RATKA vs 40 mTKA???Stryker Mako

GS Google Scholar, ML Medline, PM PubMed, mTKA manual Total Knee Arthroplasty, RATKA Robotic-arm assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty, ? not stated, FU follow up, N/A not applicable

Fig. 2
Fig. 2. List of studies and the variables reported on

Learning curve (Level of evidence: good)

A total of five studies reported on the learning curve for RATKA (Table 2). All five studies assessed the learning curve for operating time which ranged from 7 to 80 cases20, 32, 36, 44, 50. Two studies utilised Cumulative Sum Control Chart (CUSUM) analysis to establish a learning curve inflexion point of proficiency (defined as the point of the learning curve where increasing operating times reverses) which ranged from 7 to 11 cases, dividing the learning curve for RATKA into two distinct phases, Phase 1 (initial learning segment) and Phase 2 (proficiency stage)20, 44. Marchand et al. observed continued decreases in mean operative times up to 1 year, after initial adaptation of robotics into workflows, with the mean operative time decreasing by 19 min, and only 12% of the cases exceeded 70 min operating time, quicker than mTKA performed by the same surgeons32. Cumulative robotic experience did not impact the accuracy of achieving the planned implant positioning, limb alignment, posterior condylar offset ratio, posterior tibial slope, or native joint line restoration20. This was quantified by Kayani et al. and affirmed in other studies which mainly reported no learning curve in accurate post-operative mechanical axis alignment20, 32.

Table 2. Evidence for learning curve
Operating time
AuthorYearFindings
Kayani et al.202019Inflexion point of proficiency after seven cases for operative times (p = 0.01) and surgical team anxiety levels (p = 0.02)
Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (n.s.) limb alignment (n.s.) posterior condylar offset ratio (n.s.) posterior tibial slope (n.s.) and joint line restoration (n.s.)
Utilising the Surrogate Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire, Kayani et al. demonstrated that confidence level of surgical team improved in a pattern similar to the learning curve for operative times, with an inflexion point at seven cases. After this point, there was no difference in the overall STAI scores amongst team members between RATKA and mTKA
Marchand et al.322020The data indicate a significant decrease in the mean RATKA operative times from 1 month to 1 year of using robotic technology (81 vs. 62 min, p < 0.00001)
The mean surgical times continued to decrease after 6 months of RATKA. In 1 year, the surgeon was performing 88% of the RATKA between 50 and 69 min. The initial cohort and 1-year robotic-assisted mean operative times were 81 and 62 min, respectively (p < 0.00001)
Mean 6-month robotic-assisted operative times were similar to manual times (p = 0.12)
Naziri et al.362019Proposed point of proficiency as 20 cases
Intraoperative EBL was comparable between RATKA and traditional TKA cohorts (42.4 vs. 49 ml, p = 0.448)
The RATKA cohort required slightly greater overall surgical time than the traditional TKA cohort (82.5 vs. 78.3 min, p = 0.002)
There was no significant difference in surgical time when comparing the mean surgical time of the second 20 cases of RATKA to the traditional TKA group (81.1 min vs. 78.3 min, p = 0.254)
Savov et al.442019Inflexion point of proficiency after 11 cases for operative time
The mean surgery time in the robotic group after finishing the learning curve was 66 min (± 4.2) and in the total manual group 67 min (± 3.5) (n.s.)
Sodhi et al.502017Shortening of operative time from 99 min (cases 1–40) to 84 min (cases 81–120)
No significant differences compared with mTKA in last 40 cases, 84 min vs 81 min

mTKA manual total knee arthroplasty, RATKA Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty, EBL estimated blood loss

Component position accuracy (level of evidence: good)

There were six clinical studies identified that reported on accuracy of component positioning and all compared RATKA against mTKA (Table 3)4, 20, 44, 50–52. Three studies reported the posterior condylar offset ratio (PCOR) differences in RATKA and mTKA20, 51, 52. There was consistent evidence that RATKA resulted in significantly less differences between pre- and post-operative PCOR. Sultan et al. and Tucking et al. reported the lower differences between pre- and postoperative PCOR (p = 0.01 and p = 0.001 respectively)51, 52. When utilising RATKA, femoral components were placed with increased precision, within mean error range of 0.053 ± 0.020, as compared to 0.072 ± 0.035 when mTKA was utilised (Fig. 3d)20, 51, 52. Four studies reported the mechanical and coronal alignment, as well as sagittal alignment accuracies of implant positioning20, 28, 36, 44. When utilising RATKA, coronal alignment of the femur was within mean error range of 0.19 ± 1.14 while that for mTKA was 1.3 ± 1.34 (Fig. 3a). For tibia coronal alignment, it was 0.93 ± 1.57 for RATKA and 2.1 ± 1.76 for mTKA (Fig. 3b). As for posterior slope, it was 2.9 ± 1.59 for RATKA and 3.6 ± 2.51 for mTKA (Fig. 3c). These findings showed that RATKA was more precise compared to mTKA. The mTKAs were associated with wider range of component positioning, some of which are outside the preferred mean error range of ± 3 degrees. The pooled results from the forest plots demonstrated that component positioning using RATKA as compared to the mTKA was significantly more accurate (Femur coronal: mean difference 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.55, p < 0.00001; Tibia coronal: mean difference 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32–1.81, p < 0.00001; Fig. 3a, b). In addition, Mahoney et al. showed that the femoral component external rotation with respect to the transepicondylar axis was more precise with the use of RATKA although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.195)28.

Table 3. Evidence for implant accuracy
Component accuracy
Kayani et al.202019[Accuracy in achieving the planned implant positions compared to conventional jig based TKA]
Mechanical alignment (degrees), mean (SD)
mTKA 3.2 ± 1.2 vs RATKA 1.5 ± 0.9, p < 0.001
PCOR
mTKA 0.3 ± 0.1 vs RATKA 0.2 ± 0.1, n.s
Posterior slope
mTKA 3.4 ± 1.1 vs RATKA 1.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001
Joint line
mTKA 2.9 ± 1.4 vs RATKA 1.0 ± 0.6, p < 0.001
Femur coronal
mTKA 4.1 ± 1.1 vs RATKA 1.0 ± 0.4, p < 0.001
Femur sagittal
mTKA 4.2 ± 0.8 vs RATKA 2.1 ± 0.7, p < 0.001
Tibia coronal
mTKA 3.6 ± 0.8 vs RATKA 1.0 ± 0.5, p < 0.001
Tibia sagittal
mTKA 3.9 ± 1.0 vs RATKA 2.0 ± 0.6, p < 0.001
Mahoney et al.282020Coronal positions measured via CT (mean ± SD)
Femoral components
mTKA 0.1 (± 1.6) varus vs RATKA 0.0 (± 1.4) varus, p = 0.506
Tibial components
mTKA 1.9 (± 2.4) varus vs RATKA 0.9 (± 2.0) varus, p = 0.005
Femoral component external rotation relative to the transepicondylar axis
mTKA 1.1 ± 2.3 vs RATKA 0.5 ± 2.3 degrees, (p = 0.195)
Tibial slopes
mTKA 3.7 ± 3.0 vs 3.2 ± 1.8 degrees, (p = 0.291)
Naziri et al.362019Postoperative alignment was within + 3.0° of the mechanical axis for all patients in both RATKA and mTKA groups
Savov et al.442019Limb alignment and restoration of the joint line
mTKA no difference from RATKA
RATKA deviation limb alignment to the intraoperative plan, mean = 2° (± 1.1)
RATKA deviation of the medial proximal tibial (mPTA) and distal lateral femoral angle (dLFA) = 1° (± 0.9) for both
Sultan et al.512019Postoperative PCOR, mean (SD)
mTKA 0.53 (± 0.3) vs RATKA 0.49 (± 0.21), p = 0.024
Difference between pre- and postoperative PCOR, mean
mTKA 0.03 vs RATKA 0.004, p = 0.01
Postoperative ISI outside of the normal range (0.8–0.12)
mTKA 12 vs RATKA 4
Tucking et al.522020Postoperative PCOR, mean (SD)
mTKA 0.47 (± 0.05) vs RATKA 0.51 (± 0.05), p = 0.006)
PCOR (difference between pre- and postoperative), mean
mTKA 0.059 vs RATKA -0.017, p = 0.001
Relative deviation of PCOR, mean (SD)
mTKA 12.03% (± 9.1) vs RATKA 3.9% (± 4.5)

PCOR Posterior condylar offset ratio, ISI Insall-Salvati Index, mTKA manual total knee arthroplasty, RATKA Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty

Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Forest plot of pooled component position accuracy. a Coronal femur positioning. b Coronal tibia positioning. c Tibia posterior slope. d PCOR deviations

Knee balancing and alignment techniques (level of evidence: fair)

Seven (44%) of the 16 clinical studies reported the balancing and/or the alignment techniques utilised for the TKAs groups (Table 4). Out of the seven studies, two stated that the mTKAs were performed using a standard measured resection technique followed by soft tissue releases to achieve a balanced and mechanically aligned knee, but did not define how the RATKA groups were balanced or how the alignment was achieved and whether it was using mechanical, kinematic or restricted kinematic alignment methods30, 51. Two studies used same methods in both groups, Bhimani et al. using gap balancing techniques and Mahoney et al. using measured resection techniques4, 28. The three remaining studies, however, used different methods for their RATKA and mTKA groups, namely kinematic alignment and gap balancing methods for RATKAs and measured resection methods for mTKAs18, 20, 49.

Table 4. Evidence for alignment and balancing techniques
AuthorYearFindings
Bhimani et al.42020RATKA: to achieve the desired bone cuts and target limb alignment, along with symmetrically balanced flexion and extension gaps
Unknown which technique and which reference alignment was utilised
mTKA: A gap balancing technique was utilized using a ligamentous tensioning device with the extension gap balanced followed by balancing the flexion gap after release of the posterior cruciate ligament
Gap balancing techniques utilised
Kayani et al.182018mTKA utilised a measured resection technique aligned to the mechanical axis
RATKA utilised dynamic referencing to achieve equal gaps throughout the range of motion, utilising gap balancing and kinematic alignment techniques
Kayani et al.192018RATKA: intraoperative dynamic gap balancing techniques were used with kinematic alignment assessed through the arc of motion, and enabled fine tuning of implant positioning based on laxity of the soft tissue envelope, within 2 mm of the planned bone resection
Utilised restricted kinematic alignment techniques
mTKA: measured resection and mechanical alignment as reference
Mahoney et al.282020Both RATKA and mTKA utilised mechanical alignment as reference for all except nine cases of two centers that were targeted within ± 3 degrees
Marchand et al.302017RATKA: the prosthesis was manipulated allowing for optimal balancing and realignment. The knee was brought into extension, and alignment was checked with the robotic-assisted device both in extension and at 90 degrees of flexion
No mention if mechanical/kinematic alignment was utilised to check the knee in extension
mTKA: measured resection techniques used with mechanical alignment as reference
Smith et al.492019RATKA: equal gap measurements within 1 mm between the flexion and extension gaps and the medial and lateral gaps, keeping limb alignment within 3 degrees of the mechanical axis and use the bone cuts to balance gaps instead of soft tissue releases unless the target fell out of 3 degrees window, at which point a combination of bone cuts and soft tissue releases was utilized to achieve balanced gaps within 1 mm
Restricted kinematic alignment and gap balancing techniques
mTKA: Mechanical alignment and measured resection techniques utilised
Sultan et al.512019RATKA: Intraoperative adjustments to the plan were performed to determine ideal component placement for a balanced knee. Ligament balancing was assessed following resections and after trialing
mTKA was performed using a standard technique
No mention of measured resection or gap balancing techniques nor how mechanical / kinematic alignment was achieved

mTKA manual total knee arthroplasty, RATKA Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty

Functional outcomes (level of evidence: good)

There were seven clinical studies reporting the functional outcomes following RATKA compared to mTKA (Table 5)19, 23, 28, 30, 31, 35, 49. Different outcome scores were utilised across the included studies, with the Knee Society Scores (KSS) being the most reported followed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Overall KSS ranged from 44.5 to 86.5-points and WOMAC scores ranged from 40 to 92-points in the RATKA group, whereas in mTKA group, it was 46.9 to 87.5-points for KSS scores and 16 to 86-points in WOMAC scores (Fig. 4). Khlopas et al. found evidence to suggest significant differences in the improvements made in scores but not in the absolute mean postoperative KSS scores achieved, while Mahoney et al. observed better scores in RATKA but it was not statistically significant (p = 0.159)23, 28. Meta-analysis of outcome data from the studies demonstrated RATKA resulted in a significantly better KSS score compared to mTKA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (mean difference 1.23, 95% CI 0.51–1.94, p = 0.004: Fig. 4). Meta-analysis of outcome data for WOMAC scores also demonstrated RATKA had significantly better scores compared to mTKA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (mean difference 3.72, 95% CI 1.72–5.72, p = 0.009: Fig. 4).

Table 5. Evidence for functional outcomes
AuthorYearFindings
Kayani et al.192018Shorter time to straight leg raise
mTKA 31.0 (IQR 24.0–44.0) vs RATKA 20.0 (IQR 18.0–21.0), p < 0.001
Improved maximum knee flexion at discharge
mTKA 93.3 (90.0–110.0) vs RATKA 104.1 (90.0–120.0), p < 0.001
Mean pain score – Day 3, mean (range)
mTKA 4.5 (2.0–7.0) vs RATKA 2.6 (1.0–5.0)
Khlopas et al.232020KSS scores (Improvements in functional activity walking and standing), 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively, mean
mTKA 1.2 vs RATKA 1.4 (p = 0.019)
KSS (functional activity score), 3 months, mean (estimated SD)
mTKA 67.2 (± 21) vs RATKA 65.5 (± 20.3), p = 0.613
KSS Pain scores improvements, 3 months, mean
Walking
mTKA 4.1 vs RATKA 4.3, p = 0.06
Total symptoms
mTKA 10.3 vs RATKA 10.5, p = 0.781
KSS Patient Satisfaction Scores Mean (estimated SD)
4–6 weeks:
mTKA 25.9 (± 8) vs RATKA 25.2 (± 10), p = 0.268
3 months:
mTKA 29.1 (± 8.5) vs RATKA 29.4 (± 10), p = 0.268
Mahoney et al.282020[For all PROMs, longitudinal trends mTKA and RATKA similar at 1 year except VR12 physical scores]
KSS Adjusted mean (95% C.I.)
symptoms
mTKA 20.3 [18.4, 22.2] vs RATKA 20.8 [18.9, 22.7] p = 0.531
Satisfaction
mTKA 35.2 [32.0, 38.4] vs RATKA 35.9 [32.6, 39.2] p = 0.532
Expectations
mTKA 10.6 [9.2, 12.0] vs RATKA 11.2 [9.7, 12.7] p = 0.192
Function
mTKA 81.1 [75.5, 86.8] vs RATKA 84.6 [78.8, 90.4] p = 0.159
Veterans RAND 12-item health scale Adjusted mean (95% C.I.)
physical component
mTKA 50.5 [47.5, 53.5] vs RATKA 52.9 [49.9, 55.9] p = 0.034
Mental component
mTKA 56.0 [53.7, 58.3] vs RATKA 54.6 [52.2, 57.0] p = 0.213
Marchand et al.302017WOMAC (physical function), 6-month postoperative, mean (SD)
mTKA 9 (± 5) vs RATKA (4 ± 5), p = 0.055
WOMAC (pain), 6-month postoperative, mean (SD)
mTKA 5 (± 3) vs RATKA 3 (± 3) p < 0.05
Converted WOMAC scores
mTKA 32(20) vs RATKA 52(20)
mTKA 10(6) vs RATKA 14(6)
Total: mTKA 42 vs RATKA 76
Marchand et al.312019WOMAC (Physical Function), mean (SD)
mTKA 6 (± 5) points vs RATKA 4 (± 4) points, p < 0.05
WOMAC (Pain scores), mean (SD)
mTKA 3 (± 4) points, vs RATKA 2 (± 3) points, p = 0.06
Converted WOMAC scores
PF: mTKA 44 (20) vs RATKA 52(16)
PS: mTKA 14(8) vs RATKA 16(6)
Total: mTKA 58 vs RATKA 78
Naziri et al.362019Range of motion improvement at 90 days
mTKA -8.7 deg vs RATKA + 3.8 deg, p < 0.05
KSS at 30, 60, 90 days, mean
mTKA 90.9 vs RATKA 86.0, p = 0.082
mTKA 91.7 vs RATKA 91.9 p = 0.938
mTKA 89.5 vs RATKA 88.2 p = 0.730
LEAS at 30, 60, 90 days
mTKA 11.50 vs RATKA 11.63, p = 0.736
mTKA 11.65 vs RATKA 12.06, p = 0.271
mTKA 11.94 vs RATKA 12.18, p = 0.519
[No report on the spread of data hence not included in the meta-analysis]
Smith et al.492019Range of motion
mTKA 1 to 116 degrees vs RATKA 0 to 119 degrees (p = 0.88 and p = 0.02 for extension and flexion)
KSS function score (6-week and 1-year average score)
mTKA 58 and 73 vs RATKA 63 and 80, p = 0.02 and p = 0.005)
1-year KSS knee score
mTKA 82 vs RATKA 85, p = 0.046
Overall patient reported satisfaction reported with a Likert scoring system
mTKA 82% vs RATKA 94% (p = 0.036)
KSS Patient satisfaction scores mean
mTKA 6.6 vs RATKA 7.1, (p = 0.027)
[No report on the spread of data hence not included in the meta-analysis]

WOMAC: Western-Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, KSS: Knee society score, LEAS: Lower extremity activity scale, mTKA: manual total knee arthroplasty, RATKA: Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty

Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Forest plot of pooled functional outcome scores

Complications (level of evidence: good)

Six studies reported on the complications between RATKA and mTKA groups (Table 6)4, 19, 20, 25, 36, 49. The most reported complications were arthrofibrosis requiring MUA, superficial or deep infections and wound dehiscence. Overall complication rates were low. No studies reported any pin site fractures or component revisions. In the RATKA group, arthrofibrosis rates ranged from 0 to 7.5%, superficial or deep infection rates ranged from 0 to 1.4% and wound dehiscence rates ranged from 0 to 2.5%. In mTKA groups arthrofibrosis rates ranged from 0 to 8.7%, superficial or deep infection rates ranged from 0 to 0.8%, and wound dehiscence rates ranged from 0 to 2.5%. A forest plot of pooled reported complication data demonstrated that there was no difference in arthrofibrosis, infection or wound dehiscence rates, but there was a higher risk (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 2.94, p = 0.84; Fig. 5) for overall complication rate associated with mTKA compared to RATKA in short-term follow-up, but this was not significant.

Table 6. Evidence for complications
AuthorYearFindings
Bhimani et al.42020Pain scores (mean) – 2 weeks
At rest
mTKA 3.5 vs RATKA 2.6, p = 0.001
With activity
mTKA 7.0 vs RATKA 6.3, p = 0.03
Pain scores (mean) – 6 weeks
At rest
mTKA 1.6 vs RATKA 1.0, p = 0.03
With activity
mTKA 4.7 vs RATKA 3.8, p = 0.02
Time to discharge (days)
mTKA 2.3 vs RATKA 1.9, p < 0.001
MUA
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 1 and RATKA 2 (prosthetic joint infections)
Wound dehiscence
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Kayani et al.192018MUA
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Wound dehiscence
mTKA, 1 (distal part of the midline incision) vs RATKA group 1 (incision for the proximal tibial registration pins), all recovered with regular dressings and prophylactic oral antibiotics
Time to discharge (hrs), median (IQR)
mTKA 105.0 (IQR 98.0–126.0) vs RATKA 77.0 (IQR 74.0–81.0), p < 0.001
Post-operative pain score – day 3, mean (range)
mTKA 4.5 (2.0–7.0) vs RATKA 2.6 (1.0–5.0), p < 0.001
Kayani et al.202019MUA
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Wound dehiscence
mTKA, 1 (distal part of the midline incision) vs RATKA group 1 (incision for the proximal tibial registration pins), all recovered with regular dressings and prophylactic oral antibiotics
King et al.252020Pain scores, mean
mTKA 5.1 vs RATKA 5.5, p = 0.288
Time to discharge, days
mTKA 2.6 vs RATKA 2.3, p < 0.001
Early readmissions
mTKA 4 vs RATKA 3, p = 0.9
Most common reason for readmission across both groups was related to bleeding events (3/7)
Return to ED
mTKA 21 vs RATKA 10, p = 0.30
Most common reason was leg swelling, this accounted for only 1/10 (10%) of RATKA while it accounted for 7/21 (33%) of mTKA (p = 0.17)
MUA
mTKA 6 vs RATKA 0
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 1 vs RATKA 0
Wound dehiscence
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Naziri et al.362019Time to discharge (days), median (IQR not reported)
mTKA 1.92 vs RATKA 1.27, p < 0.001
30 days
Minor Complications—None reported
Major Complication Rate
mTKA 2.5% vs RATKA 0.0%, p = 0.320
[mTKA with Arthrofibrosis requiring Manipulation under Anesthesia (MUA) (n = 1)]
MUA
mTKA 1 vs RATKA 0
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Wound dehiscence
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
No complications for 60 and 90 day follow ups
Smith et al.492019Time to discharge (days)
mTKA 3 vs RATKA 2
MUA
mTKA 9 vs RATKA 9
[If patients did not reach active range of motion to 105 degrees of flexion at 6 weeks then manipulation was recommended.]
Superficial and deep infections
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Wound dehiscence
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 0
Non-fatal pulmonary embolism
mTKA 0 vs RATKA 2

KSS Knee Society Score, IQR Inter-quartile range, ED Emergency Department, MUA Manipulations Under Anaesthesia, mTKA manual Total Knee Arthroplasty, RATKA Robotic-arm assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty

Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Forest plot of pooled complications

Discussion

The key findings of this review were the following: (a) the learning curve of RATKA for surgical proficiency, stress and confidence levels was short (7–11 cases); (b) component positioning for RATKA was more precise when compared with mTKA; (c) short-term patient-reported outcomes were better with RATKA; (d) RATKA had similar complication rates as mTKA in the short-term and (e) there is a need for improved reporting of knee alignment and balancing techniques when comparing RATKA and mTKA.

The barrier for initial adoption is considered low for RATKA as the learning curve for RATKA was short. Decreasing operating times were noted after the first 7 to 11 cases, following initial phases of adaptation in techniques20, 44. This is coupled with the fact that there is no learning curve for accuracy of implant positioning. However, to achieve higher proficiencies, a relatively wider range in overall number of cases, 20 to 80, was required. The use of a defined methodology such as the CUSUM analysis is preferable as it identifies one exact turning point over a continuous curve, shown to be an accepted method in exploring the actual learning curve20, 22, 54. However, to gain mastery of RATKA techniques, with surgeons becoming more comfortable and experienced, it would be after about 80 cases, with reported consistently shorter operating times thereafter32.

RATKAs have a theoretical advantage over mTKAs in component positioning in all three dimensions: coronal, sagittal and axial. The current analysis showed consistent evidence that RATKA resulted in less outliers in the component positions. This reflects the precision of the technique, irrespective of the knee alignment and balancing techniques used, which may differ from surgeon to surgeon. With the higher accuracy of component placement by RATKA, especially in the sagittal plane, the surgeon could potentially gap balance the knee more precisely with the use of RATKA compared to mTKA. Traditionally, balanced gaps have been considered a prerequisite for good function and endurance in TKA, and a balanced knee could affect long-term clinical outcomes34, 47. Furthermore, this precision and intra-operative feedback on the gap balancing could possibly minimise limitations in the conventional techniques and sizing options. Kayani et al. reported better early maximum knee flexion for RATKA 104.1 (90.0–120.0) degrees compared to mTKA 93.3 (90.0–110.0) degrees (p < 0.001), and there was a trend towards a reduced incidence of stiffness post-operatively (requiring MUA) for the RATKA cohort19. Future longer-term studies reporting the clinical outcomes of RATKAs should include such measures and evaluate the clinical relevance.

There is a need for improved reporting criteria for alignment and balancing techniques used in studies comparing RATKA with mTKA. Of the seven clinical studies that reported balancing and alignment techniques, only two studies used same balancing and alignment methods and two studies did not even state how their RATKAs groups were balanced or aligned4, 28, 30, 51. RATKA appear to be highly effective in improving the precision of restricted kinematic alignment techniques. Kayani et al. utilised measured resection for mTKA and restricted kinematic alignment for RATKA and recorded a significantly better component position accuracy in all three variables, namely coronal femur and tibia position and tibia posterior slope20. Mahoney et al. on the other hand utilised measured resection technique in both RATKA and mTKA, and better accuracies was shown only in tibia coronal positioning. However, due to inconsistent reporting methods in the stated technique for RATKA, there are currently insufficient data to indicate whether the restricted kinematic alignment technique yields better results for RATKAs. Overall, there is a need for improved reporting of the alignment and balancing techniques used (a critical aspect of comparing manual and robotic techniques). Future studies should report this to allow better conclusions to be made on the best alignment and balancing technique to be used with RATKA.

The current meta-analysis has demonstrated improved short-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for RATKA, compared to mTKA, according to the pooled KSS and WOMAC scores. Although there was a significant difference in the KSS of 1.23 points in favour of RATKA, this is not greater than the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and, therefore, may not be clinically relevant26. Similarly, for WOMAC scores, there was a statistically significant difference but may not be clinically relevant10. Mahoney et al. reported on better physical scores of VR-12 in favour of RATKA, and again this was also not greater than the MCID28, 38. Although this may suggest that RATKA techniques may not make clinical differences in the short and medium term, it may also be reflective of the intrinsic limitations of the PROMs used, especially the ceiling effect. Scores such as the Forgotten joint score have a limited ceiling effect and may be better at demonstrating measurable clinically significant differences between RATKA and mTKA in future studies11, 14.

Overall, the number of complications is low. Despite pooling together 1674 cases, only 24 arthrofibrosis requiring MUA, four infections, two wound dehiscence and no pin-site fractures were identified. The pooled results showed that the improved accuracy of component position obtained with RATKAs was not associated with any reduced joint stiffness nor was there increased risks of wound dehiscence or peri-prosthetic fractures. Given that only 33% of the weighted studies (n = 2/6) in the current analysis had a minimum follow-up of 1 year, of which only one had a follow-up of 15 months for the RATKA group, there remains a need for improved evidence with longer follow-up to better assess longer term complication and revision rates.

There are a few key limitations of the data set. First, the inclusion criteria, such as English language, may have excluded relevant studies. Second, the methodology has known limitations regarding the type of studies included (non-blinded, non-randomised prospective and retrospective cohort studies) and the difficulties in assessing the analyses without access to the raw data. Third, there was an important variability between the studies with respect to the type of outcome measurement used, the follow-up period and cohorts evaluated. Moreover, there are not yet any published randomized controlled trials. The studies on RATKAs are few and mainly have short-term follow-up. Future studies with longer term follow-up will be needed to provide more conclusive findings in assessing the outcomes and benefits. Another limitation was that two studies were excluded in the forest plot for functional outcomes of KSS scores because the spread of the data was not available for pooled analysis36, 49. Furthermore, the overall WOMAC score collected by Marchand et al. used a modified scale rather than the original WOMAC30, 31. These may have introduced bias into the analysis.

The main strength of this study, compared to previous systematic reviews, was the quantitative assessment of a singular image-based RATKA system. The assessments made with regard to the accuracy of component positioning in the various parameters allow the surgeon to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the system, modifying techniques to fine-tune bone resection, implant positioning and soft tissue releases to achieve the desired alignment and balancing, which was shown to be associated with improved functional outcomes.

Conclusion

RATKA demonstrated improved accuracy of component positioning and early patient-reported outcomes, though it may not be clinically significant. The learning curve of RATKA for operating time was between 7 and 11 cases. Future well-powered studies should report on the knee alignment and balancing techniques utilised in RATKAs to enable greater comparisons to be made on which techniques maximally benefit patient outcomes and provide better insights into alternate alignment philosophies.

Abbreviations

RATKA
Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty
mTKA
Manual total knee arthroplasty
CUSUM
Cumulative sum control chart
CI
Confidence interval
TKA
Total knee arthroplasty
PRISMA
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
NIH
National institutes of health
KSS
Knee society scores
WOMAC
Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index
MUA
Manipulation under anaesthesia
STAI
Surrogate anxiety inventory
PCOR
Posterior condylar offset ratio
PROMs
Patient reported outcome measures
MCID
Minimal clinical important difference

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the kind assistance rendered by Michael A Mont in the conversion required for the WOMAC scores collected by his team into a percentage scale.

Declarations

The original online version of this article was revised: The correct version of abstract updated.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

4/18/2021

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x

Author contributions

JZ: wrote the manuscript and collaborated with the team on the selection of articles for inclusion. WSN: collaborated with the team on the selecion of articles for inclusion. NN: performed the statistical analysis of the current meta-analysis. PG: guidance in the preparation of the manuscipt. PMS: guidance in the preparation of the manuscript. GJM: research idea creation, direction of the manuscript writing. JTP: research idea creation, direction of the manuscript writing. NDC: research idea creation, literature review and providing the mentorship for preparation and execution of the stages of the review and meta-analysis.

Funding

There was no funding received in the production of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that the conflicts of interest as stated in the forms submitted.

There is no need for ethical approvals for this systematic review and meta-analysis, and this study has been registered with PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID no. CRD42020218706).

There is no informed consent required in the preparation of this review.

Sources

References

56 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (54 records are cited).

  1. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Agarwal N, To K, McDonnell S, Khan W

    2020J Arthroplasty 35(11):3393–3409.e2 · PMID 32234326doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.03.005

  2. MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

    Batailler C, Fernandez A, Swan J, Servien E, Haddad FS, Catani F, Lustig S

    2020Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc · PMID 32975626doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06283-z

  3. Robotics in total knee arthroplasty

    Bautista M, Manrique J, Hozack WJ

    2019J Knee Surg 32(7):600–606 · PMID 30822790doi:10.1055/s-0039-1681053

  4. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrates decreased postoperative pain and opioid usage compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty

    Bhimani SJ, Bhimani R, Smith A, Eccles C, Smith L, Malkani A

    2020Bone Jt Open 1(2):8–12 · PMID 33215101doi:10.1302/2633-1462.12.BJO-2019-0004.R1

  5. No difference in clinical outcome between patient-matched positioning guides and conventional instrumented total knee arthroplasty two years post-operatively: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

    Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Kerens B, van der Weegen W, Hoekstra HJ, Kort NP

    2016Bone Joint J 98-B:939–944 · PMID 27365472doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37274

  6. Robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery

    Chen AF, Kazarian GS, Jessop GW, Makhdom A

    2018J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(22):1984–1992 · PMID 30480604doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.01397

  7. Robot-assisted versus conventional total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of radiological and functional outcomes

    Chin BZ, Tan SSH, Chua KCX, Budiono GR, Syn NL, O'Neill GK

    2020J Knee Surg · PMID 32185785doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701440

  8. Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years

    Cho KJ, Seon JK, Jang WY, Park CG, Song EK

    2019Int Orthop 43(6):1345–1354 · PMID 30456542doi:10.1007/s00264-018-4231-1

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

    Clement ND, Deehan DJ

    2020Bone Joint Res 9(6):279–281 · PMID 32728427doi:10.1302/2046-3758.96.BJR-2020-0033.R2

  10. What is the minimum clinically important difference for WOMAC index after TKA?

    Clement ND, Bardett M, Weir D, Holland J, Gerrand C, Deehan DJ

    2018Clin Orthop Relat Res 476(10):2005–2014 · PMID 30179956doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000000444

  11. An alternative technique of restricted kinematic alignment of the femur and gap balanced alignment of the tibia using computer aided navigation

    Clement ND, Calliess T, Christen B, Deehan DJ

    2020Bone Joint Res 9(6):282–284 · PMID 32728428doi:10.1302/2046-3758.96.BJR-2020-0119.R1

  12. A 90-day episode-of-care cost analysis of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty

    Cool CL, Jacofsky DJ, Seeger KA, Sodhi N, Mont MA

    2019J Comp Eff Res 8(5):327–336 · PMID 30686022doi:10.2217/cer-2018-0136

  13. Comparison between navigated reported position and postoperative computed tomography to evaluate accuracy in a robotic navigation system in total knee arthroplasty

    Figueroa F, Wakelin E, Twiggs J, Fritsch B

    2019Knee 26(4):869–875 · PMID 31171424doi:10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.004

  14. Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population

    Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, Giesinger K, MacDonald DJ, Patton JT, Simpson AH, Howie CR

    2017Bone Joint J 99-B(2):218–224 · PMID 28148664doi:10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0606.R1

  15. The first clinical application of a "hands-on" robotic knee surgery system

    Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguez y Baena F, Gomes P, Cobb J, Davies BL

    2001Comput Aided Surg 6(6):329–339 · PMID 11954064doi:10.1002/igs.10023

  16. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis

    Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR

    2013Bone Joint J 95-B(1):115–121 · PMID 23307684doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29835

  17. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

    Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Onochie E, Al-Jabri T, Haddad FS

    2019EFORT Open Rev 4(10):611–617 · PMID 31754467doi:10.1302/2058-5241.4.190022

  18. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system

    Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS

    2018J Arthroplasty 33(8):2496–2501 · PMID 29699827doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042

  19. 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

    Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS

    2018Bone Joint J 100-B:930–937 · PMID 29954217doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1449.R1

  20. 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

    Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS

    2019Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(4):1132–1141 · PMID 30225554doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5

  21. The effect of anterior cruciate ligament resection on knee biomechanics

    Kayani B, Konan S, Ahmed SS, Chang JS, Ayuob A, Haddad FS

    2020Bone Joint J 102-B(4):442–448 · PMID 32228066doi:10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-1238.R2

  22. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study

    Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS

    2018Bone Joint J 100-B(8):1033–1042 · PMID 30062950doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0040.R1

  23. Patient-reported functional and satisfaction outcomes after robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective multicenter investigation

    Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Hozack WJ, Chen AF, Mahoney OM, Kinsey T, Orozco F, Mont MA

    2020J Knee Surg 33(7):685–690 · PMID 30959541doi:10.1055/s-0039-1684014

  24. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection

    Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Hampp EL, Scholl LY, Prieto M, Chang TC, Abbasi A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Otto J, Jacofsky DJ, Mont MA

    2017Surg Technol Int 30:441–446 · PMID 28696495

  25. Transitioning a practice to robotic total knee arthroplasty is correlated with favorable short-term clinical outcomes—a single surgeon experience

    King CA, Jordan M, Bradley AT, Wlodarski C, Tauchen A, Puri L

    2020J Knee Surg · PMID 32544972doi:10.1055/s-0040-1712984

  26. The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis

    Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ

    2017Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthosc 25(11):3354–3359 · PMID 27324635doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4208-9

  27. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: a 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial

    Liow MHL, Goh GS, Wong MK, Chin PL, Tay DK, Yeo SJ

    2017Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(9):2942–2951 · PMID 27017214doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3

  28. Improved component placement accuracy with robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty

    Mahoney O, Kinsey T, Sodhi N, Mont MA, Chen AF, Orozco F, Hozack W

    2020J Knee Surg · PMID 32869232doi:10.1055/s-0040-1715571

  29. What are the benefits of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty over conventional manual total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of comparative studies

    Mancino F, Cacciola G, Malahias MA, De Filippis R, De Marco D, Di Matteo VAG, Sculco PK, Maccauro G, De Martino I

    2020Orthop Rev (Pavia) 12(Suppl 1):8657 · PMID 32913593doi:10.4081/or.2020.8657

  30. Patient satisfaction outcomes after robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a short-term evaluation

    Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Harwin SF, Malkani AL, Mont MA

    2017J Knee Surg 30(9):849–853 · PMID 29029352doi:10.1055/s-0037-1607450

  31. One-year patient outcomes for robotic-arm-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty

    Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Anis HK, Ehiorobo J, Newman JM, Taylor K, Condrey C, Hepinstall MS, Mont MA

    2019J Knee Surg 32(11):1063–1068 · PMID 30959549doi:10.1055/s-0039-1683977

  32. Learning curve of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty for a high-volume surgeon

    Marchand KB, Ehiorobo J, Mathew KK, Marchand RC, Mont MA

    2020J Knee Surg · PMID 32838457doi:10.1055/s-0040-1715126

  33. Coronal correction for severe deformity using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

    Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Higuera CA, Stearns KL, Mont MA

    2018J Knee Surg 31(1):2–5 · PMID 29179223doi:10.1055/s-0037-1608840

  34. Varus-valgus balance and range of movement after total knee arthroplasty

    Matsuda Y, Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Ishii R

    2005J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(6):804–808 · PMID 15911663doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.15256

  35. Health care utilization and payer cost analysis of robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty at 30, 60, and 90 days

    Mont MA, Cool C, Gregory D, Coppolecchia A, Sodhi N, Jacofsky DJ

    2019J Knee Surg · PMID 31476777doi:10.1055/s-0039-1695741

  36. Making the transition from traditional to robotic-arm assisted TKA: What to expect? A single-surgeon comparative-analysis of the first-40 consecutive cases

    Naziri Q, Cusson BC, Chaudhri M, Shah NV, Sastry A

    2019J Orthop 16(4):364–368 · PMID 31061567doi:10.1016/j.jor.2019.03.010

  37. Flexion space balancing through component positioning and its relationship to traditional anatomic rotational landmarks in robotic total knee arthroplasty

    Nodzo SR, Staub TM, Jancuska JM, Cobler-Lichter MD, Boyle KK, Rachala S

    2020J Arthroplasty 35(6):1569–1575 · PMID 32057599doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.051

  38. How should we define clinically significant improvement on patient-reported outcomes measurement information system test for patients undergoing knee meniscal surgery?

    Okoroha KR, Lu Y, Nwachukwu BU, Beletsky A, Patel BH, Verma NN, Cole B, Forsythe B

    2020Arthroscopy 36(1):241–250 · PMID 31864584doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.036

  39. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is comparable to conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

    Onggo JR, Onggo JD, De Steiger R, Hau R

    2020Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(10):1533–1549 · PMID 32537660doi:10.1007/s00402-020-03512-5

  40. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty

    Park SE, Lee CT

    2007J Arthroplasty 22:1054–1059 · PMID 17920481doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036

  41. A novel vector-based computer tomography alignment measurement protocol for total knee arthroplasty

    Persohn SA, Paramasivam M, Zhang J, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Otto J, Wahdan A, Salem HS, Choplin RH, Territo PR, Mont MA

    2020Surg Technol Int 36:371–378 · PMID 32196560

  42. Robotic arm-assisted knee surgery: an economic analysis

    Pierce J, Needham K, Adams C, Coppolecchia A, Lavernia C

    2020Am J Manag Care 26(7):e205–e210 · PMID 32672918doi:10.37765/ajmc.2020.43763

  43. Efficacy and reliability of active robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Ren Y, Cao S, Wu J, Weng X, Feng B

    2019Postgrad Med J 95(1121):125–133 · PMID 30808721doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-136190

  44. Comparable surgery time for robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty after initial learning curve

    Savov P, Tücking L-R, Windhagen H, Ettinger M

    2020Orthop J Sports Meddoi:10.1177/2325967120S00312

  45. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty in patients under 55 years of age

    Scott CE, Oliver WM, MacDonald D, Wade FA, Moran M, Breusch SJ

    2016Bone Joint J 98-B:1625–1634 · PMID 27909124doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B12.BJJ-2016-0375.R1

  46. Imageless, robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty combined with a robotic tensioning system can help predict and achieve accurate postoperative ligament balance

    Shalhoub S, Lawrence JM, Keggi JM, Randall AL, DeClaire JH, Plaskos C

    2019Arthroplast Today 5(3):334–340 · PMID 31516978doi:10.1016/j.artd.2019.07.003

  47. Insall Award paper: Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?

    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM

    2002Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13 · PMID 12439231doi:10.1097/00003086-200211000-00003

  48. Accuracy of bone resection in MAKO total knee robotic-assisted surgery

    Sires JD, Craik JD, Wilson CJ

    2019J Knee Surg · PMID 31694057doi:10.1055/s-0039-1700570

  49. Improved patient satisfaction following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

    Smith AF, Eccles CJ, Bhimani SJ, Denehy KM, Bhimani RB, Smith LS, Malkani AL

    2019J Knee Surg · PMID 31731324doi:10.1055/s-0039-1700837

  50. The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty

    Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS, Sultan AA, Marchand RC, Malkani AL, Mont MA

    2018J Knee Surg 31(1):17–21 · PMID 29166683doi:10.1055/s-0037-1608809

  51. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the insall-salvati index compared to the manual technique; a cohort-matched study

    Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Chen A, Orozco F, Kolisek F, Mahoney O, Smith L, Malkani A, Molloy RM, Mont MA

    2019Surg Technol Int 34:409–413 · PMID 30742701

  52. Posterior condylar offset ratio more precisely reconstructed with robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared to conventional manual technique

    Tücking L-R, Savov P, Windhagen H, Ettinger M

    2020Orthop J Sports Meddoi:10.1177/2325967120S00324

  53. Mid-flexion instability after total knee arthroplasty: woolly thinking or a real concern?

    Vince K

    2016Bone Joint J 98-B(1):84–88 · PMID 26733649doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36445

  54. Cumulative sum techniques for surgeons: a brief review

    Yap CH, Colson ME, Watters DA

    2007ANZ J Surg 77(7):583–586 · PMID 17610698doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04155.x

  55. Robotic total knee arthroplasty with a cruciate-retaining implant: a 10-year follow-up study

    Yang HY, Seon JK, Shin YJ, Lim HA, Song EK

    2017Clin Orthop Surg 9(2):169–176 · PMID 28567218doi:10.4055/cios.2017.9.2.169

  56. No difference in outcomes and gait analysis between mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods using robotic total knee arthroplasty

    Yeo JH, Seon JK, Lee DH, Song EK

    2019Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(4):1142–1147 · PMID 30220048doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5133-x

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022
Journal version
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022) · doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4
Confirmed
2021-02-06
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy2021-02-06
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Zhang J, Ndou WS, Ng N, Gaston P, Simpson PM, Macpherson GJ, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(8):2677–2695. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4
BibTeX
@article{Zhang2022Roboticarm,
  title   = {Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  author  = {Junren Zhang and Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou and Nathan Ng and Paul Gaston and Philip M. Simpson and Gavin J. Macpherson and James T. Patton and Nicholas D. Clement},
  journal = {Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy},
  year    = {2022},
  volume  = {30},
  number  = {8},
  pages   = {2677–2695},
  doi     = {10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4},
  pmid    = {33547914}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU  - Junren Zhang
AU  - Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou
AU  - Nathan Ng
AU  - Paul Gaston
AU  - Philip M. Simpson
AU  - Gavin J. Macpherson
AU  - James T. Patton
AU  - Nicholas D. Clement
JO  - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
PY  - 2022
VL  - 30
IS  - 8
SP  - 2677
EP  - 2695
DO  - 10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4
SN  - 0942-2056
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Junren Zhang, Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou, Nathan Ng, Paul Gaston, Philip M. Simpson, Gavin J. Macpherson, James T. Patton, Nicholas D. Clement, first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022;30(8):2677–2695, doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06464-4, PMID 33547914, PMC9309123. © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article