Comparison of Short-term Results: Robotic-assisted vs. Conventional Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is becoming widely accepted as a method to improve intra-operative measures and post-operative functional outcomes. While there is a large body of evidence supporting robotic-assisted unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA), few studies have examined the outcomes of this technology in simultaneous bilateral TKA procedures. Thus, the purpose of the study is to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing simultaneous robot-assisted bilateral total knee arthroplasty (raTKA) versus conventional bilateral total knee arthroplasty (convTKA). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 140 simultaneous bilateral TKA cases (61 conventional, 79 robot-assisted) performed by a single surgeon in a single institution from January 1, 2015 to December 11, 2020. The institution’s electronic medical records were reviewed for patient demographic information, operative data, and post-operative complications. Outcomes Based Electronic Research Database (OBERD) records were reviewed for patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score and SF-12 Version 1) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Results: Both raTKA and convTKA groups exhibited clinically relevant improvements beyond the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in SF-12 physical and Oxford Knee Scores at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery. There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in terms of postoperative SF-12 scores, Oxford Knee Scores, complications, or revision rates. The raTKA group had a longer length of stay (2.6 versus 2.2 days, P=0.001) and a significantly different discharge disposition with more patients entering acute rehab compared to the convTKA group (20 versus 7 patients respectively, P=0.031). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty has a non-inferior impact on short-term patient outcomes compared to conventional methods in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Level of evidence: III