NAVIO RATKA shows similar rates of hemoglobin‐drop, adverse events, readmission and early revision vs conventional TKA: a single centre retrospective cohort study

Abstract

AbstractPurposeDespite widespread adoption of NAVIO robotic‐assisted total knee arthroplasty (NAVIO RATKA) in clinical practice, clinical outcome in terms of adverse events and complications remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare adverse events, length of stay, surgical time, hemoglobin drop, early readmission rate and revision rate between conventional TKA (CTKA) and NAVIO RATKA.MethodsThis single‐centre retrospective cohort analysis compared 230 NAVIO RATKA patients to 489 CTKA patients with a minimal follow‐up of 12 months. Baseline demographic and comorbidity parameters were collected, as well as length of stay, revision rate and reason for revision, early readmission rate (< 6w) and reason for readmission, post‐operative hemoglobin levels, adverse events, surgical time and operating room time. Data were compared using Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data without normal distribution and ordinal data, categorical variables were compared using the Chi‐square or Fisher exact test.ResultsThere were no clinically relevant baseline demographic or comorbidity differences between groups. CTKA had shorter length of stay than NAVIO RATKA (5.0 days vs 5.4 days, p = 0.010) but trended towards a higher reoperation rate (4.1% vs 1.7%, p = .144, n.s). No differences were found in hemoglobin drop, readmission rate or overall incidence of adverse events, but CTKA showed more hematoma formation (1.6% vs 0%, p = .044) and higher incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (1% vs 0%, p = n.s.), whilst NAVIO RATKA showed more periprosthetic fractures and persistent wound drainage (0.4% vs 2.2%, p = .038 and 0.6% vs 4.3%, p = .001, respectively). Surgical time remained significantly longer in NAVIO RATKA during all 230 cases (87 min vs 67.6 min) and showed a continuous downward trend.ConclusionsThis study further validates the usage of NAVIO RATKA as a safe method to perform TKA, with comparable short term outcomes to CTKA in terms of early revisions and adverse events. Surgeons should be mindful of the differing adverse event profile in NAVIO RATKA and adjust their patient selection accordingly to ensure optimal outcomes. In addition, surgeons using NAVIO RATKA should expect a linear learning curve and a surgical time exceeding that of CTKA.Level of evidenceLevel III (therapeutic retrospective cohort study).