Indian Journal of Arthroplasty

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  1 (2024)
Related articles

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 2 ( October-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Analysis of Joint Awareness and Functional Outcomes in Robotic vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study with 1-year Follow-up

Sujoy Bhattacharjee, Arghya K Choudhury, Swapnil Priyadarshi, Abhirup Bose, Somya Tiwari

Keywords : Forgotten joint score, Knee osteoarthritis, Oxford knee score, Postoperative pain, Retrospective comparative study, Robotic total knee arthroplasty

Citation Information : Bhattacharjee S, Choudhury AK, Priyadarshi S, Bose A, Tiwari S. Comparative Analysis of Joint Awareness and Functional Outcomes in Robotic vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study with 1-year Follow-up. Ind J Arthroplasty 2024; 1 (2):52-56.

DOI: 10.5005/ijoa-11025-0014

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: This study aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes, including joint awareness, knee function, and pain perception, between robotic-assisted and conventional manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. With rising TKA surgeries and advances in robotics, assessing their impact on patient outcomes in the Indian population is essential. Methodology: A retrospective study was conducted with 200 patients undergoing TKA from January to March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: robotic-assisted TKA (Cuvis system, 100 patients) and conventional TKA (subvastus approach, 100 patients). Data collected included age, Body Mass Index (BMI), gender, and preoperative scores on the Visual analog scale (VAS), Oxford knee score (OKS), and Forgotten joint score (FJS). Postoperative outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Both groups completed a 1-year follow-up. At the 3- and 6-month follow-ups, no notable differences were observed in OKS between the groups. However, at 1 year, the robotic-assisted group showed a higher improvement in OKS compared to the conventional TKA group. FJS scores at 1 year also favored the robotic-assisted group, indicating higher satisfaction and reduced joint awareness during daily activities. As measured by VAS, early postoperative pain scores were markedly lower in the robotic group on days 1 and 3 post-surgery, though pain levels equalized between groups by the 1-month follow-up. Complications were minimal, with no notable differences between the groups. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted TKA was associated with higher satisfaction (better FJS scores), reduced early postoperative pain (lower VAS scores), and improved functional outcomes (better OKS scores) after 1 year. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted TKA is a favorable option over conventional TKA in enhancing patient outcomes. Clinical significance: Robotic-assisted TKA offers enhanced joint functionality and patient satisfaction, with evidence of reduced early postoperative discomfort, presenting a promising alternative to conventional TKA in knee arthroplasty.

PDF Share
  1. Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS, et al. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: Long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;452:28–34. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000229356.81749.11.
  2. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: Who is satisfied and Who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:57–63. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.
  3. Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, et al. Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:831–840. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80183-5.
  4. Choi Y-J, Ra HJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016;28:1–15. DOI: 10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.1.1.
  5. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, et al. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83-B:339–344. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.83B3.0830339.
  6. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, et al. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;452:35–43. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.000023 8825.63648.1e.
  7. Leung T, Vyas D. Robotic surgery: Applications. Am J Robot Surg 2014;1:38–41. PMID: 26501128.
  8. Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, et al. Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:957–966. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.001.
  9. Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg-Am 2003;85:1470–1478. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007.
  10. Bargar WL, Parise CA, Hankins A, et al. Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:810–814. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.066.
  11. Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: A comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:2353–2363. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026.
  12. Song E-K, Seon J-K, Yim J-H, et al. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:118–126. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3.
  13. Moon Y-W, Ha C, Do K-H, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: A controlled cadaver study using multiparameter quantitative three-dimensional CT assessment of alignment. Computer Aided Surg 2012;17:86–95. DOI: 10.3109/10929088.2012.654408.
  14. DeFrance MJ, Scuderi GR. Are 20% of patients actually dissatisfied following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2023;38:594–599. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.011.
  15. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, et al. The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(3):430.e1–436.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.03.
  16. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80(1):63–69. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859.
  17. Hayes MH, Patterson DG. Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychol Bull 1921;18:98–99. DOI: 10005607948.
  18. Alrajeb R, Zarti M, Shuia Z, et al. Robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2024;34(3):1333–1343. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03798-2.
  19. Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the insall-salvati index compared to the manual technique; A cohort-matched study. Surg Technol Int 2019;34:e13. PMID: 30742701.
  20. Baek JH, Lee SC, Lee DN, et al. Better accuracy of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional technique in patients with failed high tibial osteotomy. PLoS One 2024;19(11):e0313391. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313391.
  21. Hampp E, Chughtai M, Scholl L, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg 2019;32:239–250. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641729.
  22. Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:1054–1059. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036.
  23. Plaskos C, Blum C, Lynch B, et al. Conventional vs robotic/computer assisted total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. J Orthop Exp Innov 2021. DOI: 10.60118/001c.21225.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.