Abstract
Background
Intraoperative balancing of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be accomplished by either more prevalent but less predictable soft tissue releases, implant realignment through adjustments of bone resection or a combination of both. Robotic TKA allows for quantifiable precision performing bone resections for implant realignment within acceptable final component and limb alignments.
Objective
To provide a direct comparison of patient reported outcomes between implant realignment and traditional ligamentous release for soft tissue balancing in TKA.
Methods
IRB approved retrospective single surgeon cohort study of prospectively collected operative and clinical data of consecutive patients that underwent TKA with a single radius design utilizing kinematic sensors to assess final balance with or without robotic assistance allowing for a minimum of 12 months clinical follow up. Operative reports were reviewed to characterize the balancing strategy. In surgical cases using robotic assistance, pre-operative plan changes that altered implant placement were included in the implant realignment group. Any patient that underwent both implant realignment and soft tissue releases was analyzed separately. Kinematic sensor data was utilized to quantify ultimate balance to assure that each cohort had equivalent balance. Patient reported outcome data consisting of Knee Society- Knee Scores (KS-KS), Knee Society- Function Scores (KS-FS), and Forgotten Joint Scores (FJS) were prospectively collected during clinical follow up.
Results
182 TKA were included in the study. 3-Month clinical follow up was available for 174/182 knees (91%), 1-Year clinical follow up was available for 167/182 knees (92%) and kinematic sensor data was available for 169/182 knees (93%). Kinetic sensor data showed that on average all of the balancing subgroups achieved clinically equivalent balance.
Use of robotic-arm assistance provided the tools and confidence to decrease from ligament release only in 40.8% of non-robotic cases to 3.8% in the robotic group, and the use of component realignment alone increased from 23.7% in the non-robotic cases to 48.1% in the robotic TKA group.
KS-KS, KS-FS and FJS scores showed improvements in outcomes at both the 3-month and 1-year time points in the implant realignment cohort compared to the ligamentous release cohort. KS-KS, KS-FS, and FJS at 1-year were 1.6, 7.6, and 17.2 points higher respectively. While none of the comparisons reached statistical significance, KS-FS at 1 year showed a statistically and clinically significant difference (MCID 6.1–6.4) increase of 7.7 points in the implant realignment cohort compared to the ligamentous cohort. The 1-year trend can be further explained by the outperformance (MCID increase of 6.4 points) of the implant realignment robotic cohort at 1-year compared to the non-robotic ligamentous cohort.
Conclusions
Directly comparing TKA patients balanced with implant realignment alone versus ligamentous release alone versus combined technique, a trend toward clinical improvement above a minimally clinical significant difference in KS-FS scores benefiting the implant realignment technique was seen at both 3-months and 1-year post-operatively.
We hypothesize that the benefit of implant realignment is achieved through decreased soft tissue trauma as well as potentially greater predictability and sustainability of soft tissue balance than with soft tissue releases alone.
