Original ArticleComparison of Robotic-Assisted and Conventional Manual Implantation of a Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Section snippets
Methods and Materials
The criterion for inclusion in the study was a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. We reviewed 72 patients who were scheduled for TKA using either conventional manual implantation of a Zimmer LPS prosthesis (30 patients: group 1) or robotic-assisted implantation of such a prosthesis (32 patients: group 2). The study design was approved by the institutional review board. Two surgeons (Park and Lee), both with experience in performing manual as well as robotic implantation of TKA,
Statistical Methods
Independent T test or Mann-Whitney test was used for statistical analysis at a probability level of 95% using SPSS for Windows (version 12, Chicago, Ill).
Results
The age of group 1 (conventional) was 67.8 ± 6.44 and that of group 2 (robotic) was 62.7 ± 6.51. The follow-up period of group 1 was 49.3 ± 3.47 months and that of group 2 was 45.0 ± 0.69 months. In clinical assessment, the final follow-up Knee Society score of group 1 was 90.9 ± 4.88 points and that of group 2 was 91.6 ± 2.94 points (Table 1). The final follow-up knee functional score of group 1 was 88.5 ± 3.70 points and that of group 2 was 87.9 ± 4.99 points. The postoperative range of
Discussion
Roughly 70% of conventional TKA gives a MA alignment of less than ±3° as compared to more than 90% with navigation TKA 13, 14, 15. Robotic surgery allows an exact intraoperative translation of the preoperative planning, whereas there is certain variability with the manual approach. This is illustrated by the higher accuracy with regard to the varus-valgus alignment of the prosthetic stem in the group treated with robotic implantation. The 24-month knee scores, however, were quite similar; per
References (21)
- et al.
Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty
J Arthroplasty
(2006) - et al.
Primary stability of a ROBODOC implanted anatomical stem versus manual implantation
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(2004) Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery
J Orthop Sci
(2003)- et al.
Comparison of the fit and fill between the anatomic hip femoral component and the VerSys taper femoral component using virtual implantation on the ORTHODOC workstation
J Orthop Sci
(2003) - et al.
Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique
J Arthroplasty
(2005) - et al.
Anterior tibial post impingement in a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty
J Orthop Res
(2005) - et al.
3D femoral neck anteversion measurements based on the posterior femoral plane in ORTHODOC system
Med Biol Eng Comput
(2006) - et al.
Clinical accuracy evaluation of femoral canal preparation using the ROBODOC system
J Orthop Sci
(2006) - et al.
Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2003) - et al.
Contamination risk of the surgical team through ROBODOC's high-speed cutter
Clin Orthop Relat Res
(2001)
Cited by (156)
Applications of artificial intelligence in Orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2024, Engineering Applications of Artificial IntelligenceSafe Zones and Trajectory of Femoral Pin Placement in Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty
2023, Arthroplasty TodayClinical, Radiographic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated with a Handheld Image-free Robotic-Assisted Surgical System in Total Knee Arthroplasty
2023, Orthopedic Clinics of North America
No benefits or funds were received in support of the study.
This manuscript is being submitted for the Asian issue.