Robotic-assisted TKA Reduces Postoperative Alignment Outliers and Improves Gap Balance Compared to Conventional TKA
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Several studies have shown mechanical alignment influences the outcome of TKA. Robotic systems have been developed to improve the precision and accuracy of achieving component position and mechanical alignment.
Questions/purposes: We determined whether robotic-assisted implantation for TKA (1) improved clinical outcome; (2) improved mechanical axis alignment and implant inclination in the coronal and sagittal planes; (3) improved the balance (flexion and extension gaps); and (4) reduced complications, postoperative drainage, and operative time when compared to conventionally implanted TKA over an intermediate-term (minimum 3-year) followup period.
Methods: We prospectively randomized 100 patients who underwent unilateral TKA into one of two groups: 50 using a robotic-assisted procedure and 50 using conventional manual techniques. Outcome variables considered were postoperative ROM, WOMAC scores, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scores, mechanical axis alignment, flexion/extension gap balance, complications, postoperative drainage, and operative time. Minimum followup was 41 months (mean, 65 months; range, 41-81 months).
Results: There were no differences in postoperative ROM, WOMAC scores, and HSS knee scores. The robotic-assisted group resulted in no mechanical axis outliers (> ± 3° from neutral) compared to 24% in the conventional group. There were fewer robotic-assisted knees where the flexion gap exceeded the extension gap by 2 mm. The robotic-assisted procedures took an average of 25 minutes longer than the conventional procedures but had less postoperative blood drainage. There were no differences in complications between groups.
Conclusions: Robotic-assisted TKA appears to reduce the number of mechanical axis alignment outliers and improve the ability to achieve flexion-extension gap balance, without any differences in clinical scores or complications when compared to conventional manual techniques.
Kalyan K, Singh A, Kumar P, Gundalli A, Mane S, Swarnkar H SICOT J. 2025; 11:12.
PMID: 40035462 PMC: 11878094. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2025005.
Ang C, Ganthel K, Ho J, Devi K, Cheong J J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):145.
PMID: 39920761 PMC: 11803977. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05443-y.
Can robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty be applied to valgus deformity.
Pierre-Henri V, Vincent G, Bertrand B, Frederic F, Thomas N, Remi P Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025; 145(1):137.
PMID: 39849167 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-025-05756-5.
Wei Q, An H, Gu W, Sun W, Li R, Chai W Orthop Surg. 2025; 17(3):841-847.
PMID: 39846233 PMC: 11872359. DOI: 10.1111/os.14336.
Lachance A, Edelstein A, Shahsavarani S, Steika R, Stilwell M, Lutton J Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):2590.
PMID: 39833324 PMC: 11747172. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87312-0.