Robotic Arm-assisted Versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty : a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the MAKO Robotic System

Overview

Journal Bone Joint J

Specialties General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2022 May 2

PMID 35491572

Authors

Junren Zhang

Nathan Ng

Chloe E H Scott

Mark J G Blyth

Fares S Haddad

Gavin J Macpherson

James T Patton

Nick D Clement

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA).

Methods: Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta--Analysis statement. Search terms included "robotic", "unicompartmental", "knee", and "arthroplasty". Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis.

Results: A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume.

Conclusion: MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: 2022;104-B(5):541-548.

Citing Articles

Total versus robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee replacement (TRAKER) for medial compartment osteorthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

Clement N, Scott C, Macpherson G, Simpson P, Leitch G, Patton J Bone Jt Open. 2025; 6(2):164-177.

PMID: 39923804 PMC: 11809069. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.62.BJO-2024-0155.R1.

Beyond the surface: anterior cruciate ligament assessment in knee osteoarthritis.

Wignadasan W, Fontalis A, Shaeir M, Haddad F Bone Joint Res. 2025; 14(2):93-96.

PMID: 39912706 PMC: 11803638. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.142.BJR-2024-0313.R1.

Robotic Assistance in Simultaneous Bilateral Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 126 Knees Demonstrating Enhanced Radiographic Accuracy and Comparable Safety to Conventional Methods.

Rossi V, Foissey C, Fontalis A, Gaggiotti G, Gaggiotti S, Servien E Arthroplast Today. 2025; 31:101594.

PMID: 39902168 PMC: 11788786. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101594.

Current trends of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): choosing between robotic-assisted and conventional surgeries and timing of procedures.

Cheung K, Chan K, Cheung A, Chan P, Luk M, Chiu K Arthroplasty. 2025; 7(1):6.

PMID: 39894820 PMC: 11789413. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-024-00289-5.

Operative Time Learning Curve for an Image-Free Robotic Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cumulative Sum Analysis.

Pagan C, Karasavvidis T, Siljander B, Debbi E, DeCook C, Vigdorchik J Arthroplast Today. 2025; 31():101588.

PMID: 39811772 PMC: 11730273. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101588.

References

van der List J, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle A . 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. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4305-9. View

Battenberg A, Netravali N, Lonner J . A novel handheld robotic-assisted system for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: surgical technique and early survivorship. J Robot Surg. 2019; 14(1):55-60. PMC: 7000507. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-018-00907-w. View

Murray D, Liddle A, Liddle A, Dodd C, Pandit H . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(10 Suppl A):3-8. PMC: 4632649. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36542. View

Gilmour A, MacLean A, Rowe P, Banger M, Donnelly I, Jones B . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.050. View

Bellamy N, BUCHANAN W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Stitt L . Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988; 15(12):1833-40. View

Lonner J, John T, Conditt M . Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(1):141-6. PMC: 2795844. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-0977-5. View

Cool C, Needham K, Khlopas A, Mont M . Revision Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted and Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(5):926-931. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.018. View

Robinson P, Clement N, Hamilton D, Blyth M, Haddad F, Patton J . A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prosthesis design and type should be reported. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B(7):838-847. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1317.R1. View

Vasso M, Del Regno C, DAmelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Panni A . Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee. 2015; 22(2):117-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.004. View

10.

Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D . The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res. 2014; 9:81. PMC: 4173050. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8. View

11.

Blyth M, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger M, MacLean A, Jones B . Robotic arm-assisted conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res. 2017; 6(11):631-639. PMC: 5717071. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1. View

12.

Zuiderbaan H, van der List J, Khamaisy S, Nawabi D, Thein R, Ishmael C . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 25(3):681-686. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1. View

13.

Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A, Damato M, Feliciangeli A, Timoncini A . Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(12):3157-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-3147-6. View

14.

Gaudiani M, Samuel L, Kamath A, Courtney P, Lee G . Robotic-Assisted versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Early Functional Outcomes. J Knee Surg. 2020; 34(10):1048-1056. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701455. View

15.

Zhang F, Li H, Ba Z, Bo C, Li K . Robotic arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of the effects on clinical outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(35):e16968. PMC: 6736485. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016968. View

16.

Boonen B, Schotanus M, Kerens B, van der Weegen W, Hoekstra H, Kort N . 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. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(7):939-44. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37274. View

17.

Mancino F, Cacciola G, Malahias M, De Filippis R, De Marco D, Di Matteo V . What are the benefits of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty over conventional manual total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of comparative studies. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020; 12(Suppl 1):8657. PMC: 7459388. DOI: 10.4081/or.2020.8657. View

18.

Clement N, Deehan D, Patton J . Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B(9):1063-1070. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2018-1658.R1. View

19.

Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan F, Haddad F . 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(1):24-33. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0564.R2. View

20.

Banger M, Doonan J, Rowe P, Jones B, MacLean A, Blyth M . Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2021; 103-B(6):1088-1095. PMC: 8153511. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1355.R2. View