Image‐free handheld robotic‐assisted technology improved the accuracy of implant positioning compared to conventional instrumentation in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty, without additional benefits in improvement of clinical outcomes

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SB‐TKA) using either robotic‐assisted TKA (RA‐TKA) or conventional TKA (C‐TKA).MethodsIncluded were the patients who underwent SB‐TKA between January 2018 and January 2020 and had a minimum follow‐up of 2 years. Of 151 patients included, 117 patients were operated using an image‐free handheld robotic sculpting system (RA‐TKA group) and 34 patients operated using conventional instrumentation (C‐TKA group). The key outcomes noted were multiple patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), adverse events, and radiological outcomes. Two investigators independently measured the radiological outcomes on pre‐ and post‐operative radiographs in coronal plane (medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and anatomic lateral distal femoral angle [aLDFA]) and sagittal plane (posterior tibial slope [PTS] and posterior condylar offset [PCO]). The chi‐square test was used to examine categorical variables. Student’s t test was used to analyze the continuous variables.ResultsPatients in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (gender, body mass index, incidence of comorbidities, and length of hospital stay) except that RA‐TKA group patients younger (66.7 ± 8.9 vs 70.4 ± 10.5, P = 0.037) than C‐TKA group. The operative time was longer in RA‐TKA group as compared to C‐TKA (189.3 ± 37.1 vs 175.0 ± 28.2, P = 0.040). The final PROs at each were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). The values of PROs at final follow‐up in RA‐TKA compared to C‐TKA were VAS pain (0.4 ± 0.9 vs 0.4 ± 0.5), KOOS‐JR (89.3 ± 5.8 vs 87.1 ± 5.3), and physical (55.9 ± 2.8 vs 55.4 ± 3.2), mental (61.1 ± 4.4 vs 60.2 ± 4.7) component of VR‐12 scores, and KSS satisfaction (37.5 ± 1.1 vs 37.1 ± 2.2) (all P > 0.50 or non‐significant [n.s.]). While one patient in RA‐TKA required revision of femoral component for peri‐prosthetic fracture, none of the patient in conventional group were revised (0.85% vs 0%, P = n.s.). The proportion of patients with outliers in RA‐TKA group was lower for aLDFA (2.6% vs 22.1%, P < 0.01) and PTS (0% vs 35%, P < 0.01).ConclusionThis comparative study in patients undergoing SB‐TKA found reduction of outliers in femoral and tibial implant positioning with RA‐TKA as compared to C‐TKA. There were no differences in both groups for pain, function, and satisfaction at a minimum of 2 years of follow‐up.Level of evidenceIII Therapeutic Study.