S S Liong, W C Lee, S K M Khoo, B R K Chee, R Kunnasegaran
{"title":"A comparative study between two commonly used robotic systems on the accuracy of the intraoperative cuts in total knee arthroplasty.","authors":"S S Liong, W C Lee, S K M Khoo, B R K Chee, R Kunnasegaran","doi":"10.1007/s12306-026-00950-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) intraoperative cuts between Computed Tomography image-based MAKO and imageless ROSA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed registry data for patients who underwent imaged-based MAKO and imageless ROSA robotic TKA. Two reviewers independently radiographically measured the coronal alignment of the implants in relation to the mechanical axis at 3 months post-operation. These were compared to the planned intraoperative robotic cuts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-one patients underwent MAKO and 110 ROSA TKA. Intraclass correlation for radiographic readings was 0.88 to 0.96. When comparing the variability between intraoperative planned alignment and 3 months postoperative, MAKO femur showed no statistically significant difference (- 0.1° ± 0.8° vs. - 0.1° ± 1.2°, p = 0.12) and likewise no difference for tibia (- 0.9° ± 1.2° vs. - 0.6° ± 1.3°, p = 0.60). However, for ROSA, its femur showed statistically significant difference (- 1.2° ± 1.0° vs. - 0.7° ± 1.3°, p < 0.01), likewise for tibia (- 0.4° ± 0.9° vs. - 0.2° ± 1.4°, p < 0.01). The variability from intraoperation to 3 months postoperative was significantly different between MAKO and ROSA for femur (0.0° ± 1.0° vs. 0.4° ± 1.1°, p < 0.01), but was not statistically significant for tibia (0.3° ± 0.1° and 0.1° ± 1.1°, p = 0.26). There was a significant difference with a larger proportion of femur implant that deviated < 1º from intraoperative plan in MAKO compared to ROSA (62.1% and 37.2% respectively, p < 0.01). At the tibia component, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the extent of deviation (p = 0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was statistically significant variability in coronal alignment between intraoperative plan and postoperative 3 months in the imageless robotic system at both femur and tibia components. The extent of variability between the imageless and CT-image based systems in femur was also statistically significant. There was also a larger proportion of implant deviation of > 1º in the femur component in imageless robotic system. Nevertheless, the overall extent of the deviation between the intraoperative plan and the postoperative position was < 0.5º. Future studies may be performed to determine whether this would translate into any clinical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":18875,"journal":{"name":"MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-026-00950-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) intraoperative cuts between Computed Tomography image-based MAKO and imageless ROSA.
Methods: We retrospectively analysed registry data for patients who underwent imaged-based MAKO and imageless ROSA robotic TKA. Two reviewers independently radiographically measured the coronal alignment of the implants in relation to the mechanical axis at 3 months post-operation. These were compared to the planned intraoperative robotic cuts.
Results: One hundred sixty-one patients underwent MAKO and 110 ROSA TKA. Intraclass correlation for radiographic readings was 0.88 to 0.96. When comparing the variability between intraoperative planned alignment and 3 months postoperative, MAKO femur showed no statistically significant difference (- 0.1° ± 0.8° vs. - 0.1° ± 1.2°, p = 0.12) and likewise no difference for tibia (- 0.9° ± 1.2° vs. - 0.6° ± 1.3°, p = 0.60). However, for ROSA, its femur showed statistically significant difference (- 1.2° ± 1.0° vs. - 0.7° ± 1.3°, p < 0.01), likewise for tibia (- 0.4° ± 0.9° vs. - 0.2° ± 1.4°, p < 0.01). The variability from intraoperation to 3 months postoperative was significantly different between MAKO and ROSA for femur (0.0° ± 1.0° vs. 0.4° ± 1.1°, p < 0.01), but was not statistically significant for tibia (0.3° ± 0.1° and 0.1° ± 1.1°, p = 0.26). There was a significant difference with a larger proportion of femur implant that deviated < 1º from intraoperative plan in MAKO compared to ROSA (62.1% and 37.2% respectively, p < 0.01). At the tibia component, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the extent of deviation (p = 0.73).
Conclusion: There was statistically significant variability in coronal alignment between intraoperative plan and postoperative 3 months in the imageless robotic system at both femur and tibia components. The extent of variability between the imageless and CT-image based systems in femur was also statistically significant. There was also a larger proportion of implant deviation of > 1º in the femur component in imageless robotic system. Nevertheless, the overall extent of the deviation between the intraoperative plan and the postoperative position was < 0.5º. Future studies may be performed to determine whether this would translate into any clinical significance.
期刊介绍:
Musculoskeletal Surgery – Formerly La Chirurgia degli Organi di Movimento, founded in 1917 at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, is a peer-reviewed journal published three times a year. The journal provides up-to-date information to clinicians and scientists through the publication of original papers, reviews, case reports, and brief communications dealing with the pathogenesis and treatment of orthopaedic conditions.An electronic version is also available at http://www.springerlink.com.The journal is open for publication of supplements and for publishing abstracts of scientific meetings; conditions can be obtained from the Editors-in-Chief or the Publisher.