Comparative outcomes between a new robotically assisted and a manual technique for total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: a prospective matched comparative cohort study

Kenanidis, Eustathios; Paparoidamis, George; Milonakis, Nikolaos; Potoupnis, Michael; Tsiridis, Eleftherios

doi:10.1007/s00590-022-03274-3

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The included studies were published from 1997 to 2022 [ 8 – 12 ]. The sample size of the studied population ranged from 9 to 84,998 patients [ 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the study type, 485 (74.85%) were cohorts [ 2 , 3 , 8 – 12 , 14 – 316 ], 91 (14.04%) were case-series [ 13 , 317 – 406 ], 49 (7.56%) were case–control studies [ 407 – 455 ], nine (1.39%) cross-sectional studies [ 456 – 464 ], eight (1.23%) protocols for registry-based studies [ 465 – 472 ] and six (0.93%) randomised control trials (RCT) [ 473 – 478 ]. Three hundred twenty-seven cohort studies were retrospective [ 2 , 8 , 11 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 21 – 26 , 29 – 34 , 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 44 – 46 , 54 – 56 , 64 – 71 , 83 – 91 , 106 – 118 , 123 , 137 – 146 , 155 – 190 , 200 – 217 , 233 – 266 , 273 , 281 – 308 , 311 – 315 , 479 – 590 ], and 158 were prospective [ 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ORTHOTEP University HS Carl Gustav Carus [ 109 , 619 ] 2. Dresden Hip Surgery Registry [ 52 , 196 ] Heidelberg University of Heidelberg [ 410 ] Regensburg Regensburg University [ 198 , 255 , 292 , 296 , 299 ] Greece Athens General HS KAT [ 155 , 384 , 646 ] Thessaloniki Arthroplasty RG Thessaloniki (ART) [ 2 , 12 , 406 , 455 , 647 ] Italy Emilia-Romanga Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implant (RIPO) [ 24 , 26 , 39 , 43 , 57 , 145 , 164 , 189 , 231 , 288 , 297 , 468 , 476 , 482 , 491 , 502 , 506 , 508 , 527 , 540 , 562 , 563 , 569 , 585 , 592 , 597 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Zgouridou,

Kenanidis,

Potoupnis

et al. 2023

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II–IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II–IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data. Methods Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II–IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications’ number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs. Results One hundred five Level II–IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case–control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies. Conclusions This is the first study mapping all Level II–IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

show abstract

“…The included studies were published from 1997 to 2022 [ 8 – 12 ]. The sample size of the studied population ranged from 9 to 84,998 patients [ 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Zgouridou,

Kenanidis,

Potoupnis

et al. 2023

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A retrospective matched‐pair comparative study 21 reported that the complications and functional outcomes were comparable between ROSA‐assisted TKA and conventional TKA. A prospective matched cohort study 22 demonstrated that patients in the ROSA group had better satisfaction and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months after the operation than patients in the conventional group did. In this study, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes at the follow‐up of 1 year between the MAKO group and the ROSA group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Alignment Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes between a CT‐Based, Saw Cutting Robotic System and a CT‐Free, Jig‐guided Robotic System for Total Knee Arthroplasty

Zhou,

Wang,

Geng

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe different cutting mode of robot‐assisted TKAs may influence the accuracy of alignment. The purpose of this study was to compare alignment accuracy and early clinical outcomes between a CT‐based, saw cutting robotic system (MAKO) and a CT‐free, jig‐guided robotic system (ROSA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsA total of 20 MAKO TKAs and 20 ROSA TKAs from June 2021 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Differences in the postoperative hip‐knee‐ankle (HKA) angle, lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and 3° outlier frequency of the HKA, LDFA, MPTA and PTS were studied at 3 months and 1 year of follow‐up. The operative time and total blood loss (TBL) were compared between these two groups. Clinical outcomes at 1 year after surgery, including range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Knee Society Score‐2011 (KSS‐2011), were also compared between these two groups.ResultsThe baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. There were no significant differences in the mean deviations of postoperative HKA, LDFA, MPTA or PTS between the two groups at 3 months or 1 year (all ps > 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the percentage of 3° outliers for HKA, LDFA, MPTA, or PTS between the two groups at 3‐month or 1‐year follow‐up (all ps > 0.05). The mean operation time of MAKO was longer than that of ROSA (112.7 ± 12.8 min vs 94.8 ± 23.0 min, p = 0.001), but the mean TBL (1356.7 ± 648.5 mL vs 1384.5 ± 676.3 mL) and transfusion rate (15.0% vs 5.0%) were not significantly different between the two groups (all ps > 0.05). No significant differences were found in postoperative ROM, WOMAC score or KSS score at 1 year (all ps > 0.05).ConclusionThe MAKO and ROSA had similar accuracy and precision in TKA alignment. The clinical outcomes at 1 year after surgery were also comparable.

show abstract

“…Robotic-assisted technology has been adopted by surgeons over the last two decades to improve the accuracy of bone resections and the postoperative efficacy of TKR. Numerous studies provided evidence that robotic-assisted TKR (raTKR) can improve implant positioning, limb alignment, and gap balance, [ 6 – 9 ] and lead to better short-term outcomes compared to manual TKR (mTKR) [ 10 – 13 ]. However, not all studies reported superior patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of function following raTKR [ 14 – 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicenter, prospective cohort study: immediate postoperative gains in active range of motion following robotic-assisted total knee replacement compared to a propensity-matched control using manual instrumentation

Fary,

Cholewa,

Ren

et al. 2023

Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Range of motion (ROM) following total knee replacement (TKR) has been associated with patient satisfaction and knee function, and is also an early indicator of a successful procedure. Robotic-assisted TKR (raTKR) is considered to reproduce more precise resections, and, as a result, may be associated with improved early patient satisfaction compared to manual TKR (mTKR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early postoperative active ROM (aROM) between raTKR and mTKR. Methods A total of 216 mTKR patients were propensity-matched, in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, and BMI, to 216 raTKR cases. Intraoperative and immediate postoperative adverse events were collected. Knee flexion and extension aROM were measured preoperatively and at one- and three months after operation. Results Changes in flexion aROM were significantly greater in raTKR vs. mTKR at one- (6.9°, 95% CI: 3.5, 10.4°) and three months (4.9°, 95% CI: 2.1, 7.7°). Flexion aROM was greater at three postoperative months compared to preoperative aROM only in the raTKR group, and raTKR patients had higher odds of achieving ≥ 90° of flexion at one month after operation (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.16, 3.99). There were no significant differences between groups in intraoperative (P > 0.999) or postoperative adverse events. Conclusions Compared with mTKR, raTKR resulted in less loss of aROM immediately after operation and a faster recovery of aROM within three months after operation. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT# 03737149).

show abstract

Comparative outcomes between a new robotically assisted and a manual technique for total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: a prospective matched comparative cohort study

Cited by 17 publications

References 21 publications

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Comparison of Alignment Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes between a CT‐Based, Saw Cutting Robotic System and a CT‐Free, Jig‐guided Robotic System for Total Knee Arthroplasty

Multicenter, prospective cohort study: immediate postoperative gains in active range of motion following robotic-assisted total knee replacement compared to a propensity-matched control using manual instrumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About