Total knee arthroplasty: use of robotic surgery versus conventional surgery: Scoping review.

Q3 Medicine
E Jiménez, K Quelal, J Ortiz
{"title":"Total knee arthroplasty: use of robotic surgery versus conventional surgery: Scoping review.","authors":"E Jiménez, K Quelal, J Ortiz","doi":"10.1016/j.recot.2026.10.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability. Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is cost-effective, up to 20% of patients remain dissatisfied. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS), including navigation and robotic-assisted techniques, aims to improve alignment accuracy and surgical reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Objetive: </strong>To compare radiological, clinical, and functional outcomes between conventional and computer-assisted primary TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (2011-2024) was performed using MeSH and DeCS terms derived from the PICO question. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses comparing conventional and CAS techniques were included. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria after independent paired screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Navigation and robotic-assisted TKA achieved significantly improved mechanical axis alignment and reduced proportion of alignment outliers (>± 3°) compared with conventional TKA. Registry data suggest lower revision rates with navigation in patients younger than 65 years. Both CAS modalities demonstrated reduced systemic inflammatory response and less intraoperative soft tissue injury. However, no significant differences were found in long-term implant survivorship or functional outcomes at ≥10 years follow-up. Robotic-assisted TKA was associated with longer operative time and higher intraoperative costs, with conflicting evidence regarding overall cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CAS improves radiological accuracy and reproducibility in primary TKA but does not demonstrate superior long-term functional outcomes compared with conventional techniques. Clinical adoption should be individualized based on surgeon experience, institutional volume, patient comorbidities, and economic considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":39664,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2026.10.019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability. Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is cost-effective, up to 20% of patients remain dissatisfied. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS), including navigation and robotic-assisted techniques, aims to improve alignment accuracy and surgical reproducibility.

Objetive: To compare radiological, clinical, and functional outcomes between conventional and computer-assisted primary TKA.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (2011-2024) was performed using MeSH and DeCS terms derived from the PICO question. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses comparing conventional and CAS techniques were included. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria after independent paired screening.

Results: Navigation and robotic-assisted TKA achieved significantly improved mechanical axis alignment and reduced proportion of alignment outliers (>± 3°) compared with conventional TKA. Registry data suggest lower revision rates with navigation in patients younger than 65 years. Both CAS modalities demonstrated reduced systemic inflammatory response and less intraoperative soft tissue injury. However, no significant differences were found in long-term implant survivorship or functional outcomes at ≥10 years follow-up. Robotic-assisted TKA was associated with longer operative time and higher intraoperative costs, with conflicting evidence regarding overall cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions: CAS improves radiological accuracy and reproducibility in primary TKA but does not demonstrate superior long-term functional outcomes compared with conventional techniques. Clinical adoption should be individualized based on surgeon experience, institutional volume, patient comorbidities, and economic considerations.

全膝关节置换术:使用机器人手术与传统手术:范围回顾。
背景:膝骨关节炎是致残的主要原因。尽管全膝关节置换术(TKA)具有成本效益,但高达20%的患者仍然不满意。计算机辅助手术(CAS),包括导航和机器人辅助技术,旨在提高对准精度和手术可重复性。目的:比较传统TKA和计算机辅助原发性TKA的放射学、临床和功能结果。方法:根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围审查。综合检索PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库(2011-2024),使用源自PICO问题的MeSH和DeCS术语进行检索。包括随机对照试验、系统评价和比较传统和CAS技术的荟萃分析。经独立配对筛选,23项研究符合纳入标准。结果:与传统TKA相比,导航和机器人辅助TKA显著改善了机械轴对准,降低了对准异常值(>±3°)的比例。注册数据显示,在65岁以下的患者中,导航的翻修率较低。两种CAS模式均能降低全身炎症反应,减少术中软组织损伤。然而,在≥10年的随访中,长期种植体存活或功能结局没有发现显著差异。机器人辅助TKA与较长的手术时间和较高的术中费用相关,关于总体成本效益的证据相互矛盾。结论:与传统技术相比,CAS提高了原发性TKA的放射学准确性和可重复性,但没有表现出优越的长期功能预后。临床采用应根据外科医生经验、机构数量、患者合并症和经济考虑进行个体化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
审稿时长
51 weeks
期刊介绍: Es una magnífica revista para acceder a los mejores artículos de investigación en la especialidad y los casos clínicos de mayor interés. Además, es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad, y está incluida en prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书