PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 2024Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy20 citationsOpen Access

High three‐dimensional accuracy of component placement and lower limb alignment using a robotic arm‐assisted system and gap‐balancing instrument in total knee arthroplasty

View Full Paper
EDEmanuele DiquattroRPRobert PrillMSMikhail Salzmann

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose It was hypothesized that robotic arm‐assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA‐TKA) using additionally a gap‐balancing instrumentation will show high accuracy in executing the planning in femoral and tibial component placement throughout the range of knee motion (ROM) during TKA surgery. Methods Prospectively collected data were analysed for patients undergoing RA‐TKA. A cruciate retaining cemented design was implanted using the MAKO® robotic system. Lower limb alignment at 0°, 30°, 45°, 60° and 90° of flexion was recorded at the beginning of surgery and finally after implantation of the components. A ligament tensioner was inserted after tibial precut to measure the extension and flexion gap, and final component placement was planned based on 3D CT images. Femoral and tibial component placement was measured in all three planes. Results A total of 104 patients were included (mean age 69.4 ± 9 years; 44 male, 60 female). The difference in component placement after planning and final implantation showed less valgus of 0.7° ± 1.4° ( p < 0.001), less external rotation of 0.6° ± 1.9° ( p = 0.001) and less flexion of 0.9° ± 1.8° ( p < 0.001) for the femoral component. The tibial component was placed in more varus of 0.2° ± 0.9° ( p = 0.056) and more posterior slope of 0.5° ± 0.9° ( p < 0.001). The lower limb alignment in extension was 4.4° ± 5.2° of varus of the native knee and changed to 1.2° ± 1.9° of varus after TKA ( p < 0.01). Conclusion Robotic‐assisted TKA helps to achieve the target of alignment and component placement very close to the planning. It allows optimal component placement of off‐the‐shelf implants respecting patient's specific anatomy. Level of Evidence Level II.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Diquattro et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e770a2b6db6435876e6738https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12088
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Robotic-assisted TKA Reduces Postoperative Alignment Outliers and Improves Gap Balance Compared to Conventional TKA2012 · 448 citations
  2. 2Improved Component Placement Accuracy with Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty2020 · 115 citations
  3. 3The original Akagi line is the most reliable: a systematic review of landmarks for rotational alignment of the tibial component in TKA2018 · 73 citations
  4. 4An anatomo‐functional implant positioning technique with robotic assistance for primary TKA allows the restoration of the native knee alignment and a natural functional ligament pattern, with a faster recovery at 6 months compared to an adjusted mechanical technique2022 · 57 citations
  5. 5Checklists, risk of bias tools, and reporting guidelines for research in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2023 · 67 citations