Semiactive robotic-arm system versus patient-specific instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty: Efficacy and accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the difference in efficacy and accuracy during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among robotic-arm system, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and conventional TKA (COTKA).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 90 advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients in our hospital between June 2019 and December 2020 was conducted. Patients were divided into robotic arm-assisted (RA)TKA (group A), PSITKA (group B) and COTKA (group C), 30 cases in each group. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and length of hospital stay were counted. Imaging data of hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), posterior condylar angle (PCA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and sagittal tibial component angle (sTCA) were statistically analyzed. The postoperative recovery of the patients was evaluated by Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Western Ontario Mac Master University Index Score (WOMAC).

RESULTS

Group A had the least intraoperative bleeding. For operation time, group A was the longest compared with group B and group C (P < 0.05), while group B was longer than group C (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in HKA, LDFA, and MPTA among the three groups, and the lower limb alignments were all restored to the neutral position. PCA of group A and B were both smaller than that of group C and closer to 0° (P < 0.05), but the difference between group A and B was not statistically significant. The sTCA in group A was significantly better than group B, and group B was significantly better than group C (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in function scores among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the PSI and CO, RA is more minimally invasive and more accurate in radiographic results.