4.1 Article

Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Demonstrated Greater Accuracy and Precision to Plan Compared with Manual Techniques

Journal

JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 239-250

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641729

Keywords

robotic; total knee arthroplasty; accuracy; precision; alignment

Categories

Funding

  1. Stryker

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study determined if robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) allows for more accurate and precise bone cuts and component position to plan compared with manual total knee arthroplasty (MTKA). Specifically, we assessed the following: (1) final bone cuts, (2) final component position, and (3) a potential learning curve for RATKA. On six cadaver specimens (12 knees), a MTKA and RATKA were performed on the left and right knees, respectively. Bone-cut and final-component positioning errors relative to preoperative plans were compared. Median errors and standard deviations (SDs) in the sagittal, coronal, and axial planes were compared. Median values of the absolute deviation from plan defined the accuracy to plan. SDs described the precision to plan. RATKA bone cuts were as or more accurate to plan based on nominal median values in 11 out of 12 measurements. RATKA bone cuts were more precise to plan in 8 out of 12 measurements (p <= 0.05). RATKA final component positions were as or more accurate to plan based on median values in five out of five measurements. RATKA final component positions were more precise to plan in four out of five measurements (p <= 0.05). Stacked error results from all cuts and implant positions for each specimen in procedural order showed that RATKA error was less than MTKA error. Although this study analyzed a small number of cadaver specimens, there were dear differences that separated these two groups. When compared with MTKA, RATKA demonstrated more accurate and precise bone cuts and implant positioning to plan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available