Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) improves the accuracy of implant positioning and reduces outliers in achieving the planned limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA. Robotic TKA does not have a learning curve effect for achieving the planned implant positioning. The learning curve for achieving operative times comparable to conventional jig-based TKA is 7–20 robotic TKA cases. Cadaveric studies have shown robotic TKA is associated with reduced iatrogenic injury to the periarticular soft tissue envelope compared to conventional jig-based TKA. Robotic TKA is associated with decreased postoperative pain, enhanced early functional rehabilitation, and decreased time to hospital discharge compared to conventional jig-based TKA. However, there are no differences in medium- to long-term functional outcomes between conventional jig-based TKA and robotic TKA. Limitations of robotic TKA include high installation costs, additional radiation exposure, learning curves for gaining surgical proficiency, and compatibility of the robotic technology with a limited number of implant designs. Further higher quality studies are required to compare differences in conventional TKA versus robotic TKA in relation to long-term functional outcomes, implant survivorship, time to revision surgery, and cost-effectiveness. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:611-617. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190022

Aims The primary aim of this study was to compare the postoperative systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (conventional TKA) versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (robotic TKA). Secondary aims were to compare the macroscopic soft tissue injury, femoral and tibial bone trauma, localized thermal response, and the accuracy of component positioning between the two treatment groups. Methods This prospective randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing conventional TKA versus robotic TKA. Predefined serum markers of inflammation and localized knee temperature were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at six hours, day 1, day 2, day 7, and day 28 following TKA. Blinded observers used the Macroscopic Soft Tissue Injury (MASTI) classification system to grade intraoperative periarticular soft tissue injury and bone trauma. Plain radiographs were used to assess the accuracy of achieving the planned postioning of the components in both groups. Results Patients undergoing conventional TKA and robotic TKA had comparable changes in the postoperative systemic inflammatory and localized thermal response at six hours, day 1, day 2, and day 28 after surgery. Robotic TKA had significantly reduced levels of interleukin-6 (p < 0.001), tumour necrosis factor-α (p = 0.021), ESR (p = 0.001), CRP (p = 0.004), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.007), and creatine kinase (p = 0.004) at day 7 after surgery compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with significantly improved preservation of the periarticular soft tissue envelope (p < 0.001), and reduced femoral (p = 0.012) and tibial (p = 0.023) bone trauma compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA significantly improved the accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment (p < 0.001), femoral component positioning (p < 0.001), and tibial component positioning (p < 0.001) compared with conventional TKA. Conclusion Robotic TKA was associated with a transient reduction in the early (day 7) postoperative inflammatory response but there was no difference in the immediate (< 48 hours) or late (day 28) postoperative systemic inflammatory response compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with decreased iatrogenic periarticular soft tissue injury, reduced femoral and tibial bone trauma, and improved accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):113–122.

Background: Robotic-arm assisted surgery aims to reduce manual errors and improve the accuracy of implant positioning and orientation during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to assess the surgical team’s learning curve for robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 100 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing primary total THA performed by a single surgeon. This included 50 patients receiving conventional manual THA and 50 patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA. Independent observers recorded surrogate markers of the learning curve including operative times, confidence levels amongst the surgical team using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) questionnaire, accuracy in restoring native hip biomechanics, acetabular cup positioning, leg-length discrepancy, and complications within 90 days of surgery. Results: Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis revealed robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA was associated with a learning curve of 12 cases for achieving operative times ( p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels ( p < 0.001) comparable to conventional manual THA. There was no learning curve of robotic-arm assisted THA for accuracy of achieving the planned horizontal ( p = 0.83) and vertical ( p = 0.71) centres of rotation, combined offset ( p = 0.67), cup inclination ( p = 0.68), cup anteversion ( p = 0.72), and correction of leg-length discrepancy ( p = 0.61). There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two treatment groups. Conclusions: Integration of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA was associated with a learning curve of 12 cases for operative times and surgical team confidence levels but there was no learning curve effect for accuracy in restoring native hip biomechanics or achieving planned acetabular cup positioning and orientation.