Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 4 (10), 611-617
eCollection

Robotic Technology in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Affiliations
Review

Robotic Technology in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Babar Kayani et al. EFORT Open Rev.

Abstract

Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) improves the accuracy of implant positioning and reduces outliers in achieving the planned limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA.Robotic TKA does not have a learning curve effect for achieving the planned implant positioning. The learning curve for achieving operative times comparable to conventional jig-based TKA is 7-20 robotic TKA cases.Cadaveric studies have shown robotic TKA is associated with reduced iatrogenic injury to the periarticular soft tissue envelope compared to conventional jig-based TKA.Robotic TKA is associated with decreased postoperative pain, enhanced early functional rehabilitation, and decreased time to hospital discharge compared to conventional jig-based TKA. However, there are no differences in medium- to long-term functional outcomes between conventional jig-based TKA and robotic TKA.Limitations of robotic TKA include high installation costs, additional radiation exposure, learning curves for gaining surgical proficiency, and compatibility of the robotic technology with a limited number of implant designs.Further higher quality studies are required to compare differences in conventional TKA versus robotic TKA in relation to long-term functional outcomes, implant survivorship, time to revision surgery, and cost-effectiveness. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:611-617. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190022.

Keywords: functional outcomes; robotic; total knee arthroplasty.

Conflict of interest statement

ICMJE Conflict of interest statement: SK reports consultancy, payment for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus, payment for development of education presentations and travel/accommodations/meeting expenses for Smith and Nephew and AO, all outside the submitted work. FSH reports board membership of the Bone and Joint Journal and the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons; consultancy for Smith & Nephew, Corin, MatOrtho and Stryker; payment for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus for Smith & Nephew and Stryker; royalties paid by Smith & Nephew, MatOrtho, Corin and Stryker, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles
Feedback