Search Filters

  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Patient Specific Alignment is the Key Attribute of Robotically Assisted Surgery. A Comparative Trial with 120 Patients.

Patient Specific Alignment is the Key Attribute of Robotically Assisted Surgery. A Comparative Trial with 120 Patients.

Philip Winnock De Grave, MD, BELGIUM Jonas Kellens, MD, BELGIUM Thomas Tampere, MD, PhD-candidate, BELGIUM Hannes Vermue, MD, BELGIUM Alexander Ryckaert, MD, BELGIUM Paul Gunst, MD, BELGIUM Tamaya Van Criekinge, PhD, BELGIUM Thomas Luyckx, MD, PhD, BELGIUM Kurt Claeys, Prof., PhD, BELGIUM

AZ Delta, Roeselare, BELGIUM


2021 Congress   ePoster Presentation     Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Diagnosis / Condition

Treatment / Technique

Sports Medicine

This media is available to current ISAKOS Members, Global Link All-Access Subscribers and Webinar/Course Registrants only.

Summary: The real added value of robotic assisted surgery is performing patient specific alignment, moreover, patient specific alignment should be the goal.


Introduction

Robotic assisted surgery was introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve accuracy of implant positioning with the aim for optimizing clinical outcome. However, the targeted implant position or alignment is debated. Mechanical alignment (MA) is generally seen as the gold-standard, yet patient specific alignment strategies were introduced. Aim of this study was twofold, first to compare clinical outcome of conventional TKA vs. robotically assisted TKA in a mechanical aligned TKA series. Second, to analyze the clinical effect of introducing patient specific alignment (‘inverse kinematic alignment’, iKA) in a robotic assisted TKA cohort.

Materials And Methods

120 patients with end stage osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled in this study. The first group (n=40) received conventional, mechanical aligned (MA) TKA. The second group (n=40) robotic assisted, mechanical aligned (MA) TKA. The third group (n=40) robotic assisted, inverse kinematic aligned (iKA) TKA. All patients received Triathlon CR TKA with a uniform surgery protocol. The robotic platform used was Mako. The three groups matched for age, gender, BMI and preoperative alignment. Preoperative and 1 year postoperative clinical outcome was documented with Oxford Knee Scores (OKS).

Results

When comparing OKS between the 2 mechanical aligned groups, no significant difference (p=0.066) was calculated between conventional TKA (group 1; 40.3 ± 6.0) and robotically assisted TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) at 1 year postop. When comparing OKS between the 2 robotically assisted groups, no significant difference (p=0.069) was calculated between mechanical aligned TKA (group 2; 42.2 ± 6.3) and inverse kinematic aligned TKA (group 3; 44.6 ± 3.5). When comparing conventional mechanical aligned TKA (group 1; 40.3 ± 6.0) with robotically assisted, inverse kinematic aligned TKA (group 3; 44.6 ± 3.5), a significant difference is demonstrated (p<0.01).

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that the introduction of both patient specific alignment and robotically assisted surgery enhance clinical outcome in TKA surgery. Secondly, the real added value of robotic assisted surgery is performing patient specific alignment. Moreover, patient specific alignment should be the goal.