Abstract
Total knee arthroplasty is a successful procedure with good long-term results. Studies indicate that 15% – 25% of patients are dissatisfied with their total knee arthroplasty. In addition, return to sports activities is significantly lower than total hip arthroplasty with 34% – 42% of patients reporting decreased sports participation after their total knee arthroplasties.
Poor outcomes and failures are often associated with technical errors. These include malalignment and poor ligament balancing. Malalignment has been reported in up to 25% of all revision knee arthroplasties, and instability is responsible for over 20% of failures. Most studies show that proper alignment within 3 degrees is obtained in only 70% – 80% of cases.
Navigation has been shown in many studies to improve alignment. In 2015, Graves examined the Australian Joint Registry and found that computer navigated total knee arthroplasty was associated with a reduced revision rate in patients under 65 years of age. Navigation can improve alignment, but does not provide additional benefits of ligament balance.
Robotic-assisted surgery can assist in many of the variables that influence outcomes of total knee arthroplasty including: implant positioning, soft tissue balance, lower limb alignment, proper sizing.
The data on robotic-assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty is quite promising. Cytech showed that femoral and tibial alignment were both significantly more accurate than manual techniques with three times as many errors with the manually aligned patients. Pearle, et al. compared the cumulative revision rate at two years and showed this rate was significantly lower than data reported in most unicompartmental series, and lower revision rates than both Swedish and Australian registries. He also showed improved satisfaction scores at two years.
Pagnano has noted that optimal alignment may require some deviation from mechanically neutral alignment and individualization may be preferred. This is also likely to be a requirement of more customised or bi-cruciate retaining implant designs. The precision of robotic surgery may be necessary to obtain this individualised component alignment.
While robotic total knee arthroplasty requires further data to prove its value, more precise alignment and ligament balancing is likely to lead to improved outcomes, as Pearl, et al. and the Australian registry have shown.
While it is difficult to predict the future at this time, I believe robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is the future and that future begins now.
