Computed Tomography-Based Robotics Are More Accurate than Manual Instruments in Achieving Sagittal Alignment Targets in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Spencer H Summers, Paraic S Cagney, Tyler R Youngman, Ryan Nunley, Robert Barrack, Charles P Hannon
{"title":"Computed Tomography-Based Robotics Are More Accurate than Manual Instruments in Achieving Sagittal Alignment Targets in Total Knee Arthroplasty.","authors":"Spencer H Summers, Paraic S Cagney, Tyler R Youngman, Ryan Nunley, Robert Barrack, Charles P Hannon","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implant malalignment may predispose patients to implant failure or pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous studies indicate that robotically assisted TKA (RA-TKA) can achieve coronal alignment targets more accurately and precisely than manually instrumented TKA (M-TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of RA-TKA versus M-TKA in achieving predetermined coronal and sagittal alignment targets in TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 201 RA-TKAs performed by three high-volume, fellowship-trained surgeons between June 2021 and June 2022 were compared to a historical control of 365 M-TKAs performed between 2013 and 2017 by the same surgeons. Coronal and sagittal component alignment were assessed using standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. Included measurements were femoro-tibial alignment (FTA), medial distal femoral angle (DFA), proximal tibial angle (PTA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), tibial sagittal angle (TSA), anterior condyle offset (ACO), and posterior condyle offset ratio (PCOR). Normal and outlier ranges were determined from prior studies. The proportions of outliers were compared using univariate analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RA-TKA was more accurate than M-TKA in achieving all four sagittal alignment targets and two of the three coronal alignment targets. The RA-TKA group exhibited fewer radiographic outliers for DFA (zero versus 2.5%; P = 0.03), PTA (one versus 10.1%; P < 0.001), FSA (7.0 versus 15.6%; P < 0.01), TSA (5.0 versus 14.3%; P < 0.01), ACO (8.5 versus 30.6%; P < 0.01), and PCOR (1.5 versus 9.5%; P < 0.01). Patients in the RA-TKA group had a higher proportion with no radiographic outliers (58.2 versus 35.2%; P < 0.001) and a lower incidence of ≥ two outliers (5.5 versus 25%; P < 0.001) compared to the M-TKA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RA-TKA is more effective than M-TKA in achieving coronal and sagittal alignment, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implant malalignment may predispose patients to implant failure or pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous studies indicate that robotically assisted TKA (RA-TKA) can achieve coronal alignment targets more accurately and precisely than manually instrumented TKA (M-TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of RA-TKA versus M-TKA in achieving predetermined coronal and sagittal alignment targets in TKA.

Methods: A total of 201 RA-TKAs performed by three high-volume, fellowship-trained surgeons between June 2021 and June 2022 were compared to a historical control of 365 M-TKAs performed between 2013 and 2017 by the same surgeons. Coronal and sagittal component alignment were assessed using standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. Included measurements were femoro-tibial alignment (FTA), medial distal femoral angle (DFA), proximal tibial angle (PTA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), tibial sagittal angle (TSA), anterior condyle offset (ACO), and posterior condyle offset ratio (PCOR). Normal and outlier ranges were determined from prior studies. The proportions of outliers were compared using univariate analyses.

Results: The RA-TKA was more accurate than M-TKA in achieving all four sagittal alignment targets and two of the three coronal alignment targets. The RA-TKA group exhibited fewer radiographic outliers for DFA (zero versus 2.5%; P = 0.03), PTA (one versus 10.1%; P < 0.001), FSA (7.0 versus 15.6%; P < 0.01), TSA (5.0 versus 14.3%; P < 0.01), ACO (8.5 versus 30.6%; P < 0.01), and PCOR (1.5 versus 9.5%; P < 0.01). Patients in the RA-TKA group had a higher proportion with no radiographic outliers (58.2 versus 35.2%; P < 0.001) and a lower incidence of ≥ two outliers (5.5 versus 25%; P < 0.001) compared to the M-TKA group.

Conclusion: The RA-TKA is more effective than M-TKA in achieving coronal and sagittal alignment, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Arthroplasty
Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
734
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信