Top

Published in:

17-01-2023 | Original Paper

No difference in clinical outcomes between functionally aligned cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

Authors: Valerio Daffara, Francesco Zambianchi, Gabriele Bazzan, Nikita Matveitchouk, Alessandro Berni, Laura Piacentini, Riccardo Cuoghi Costantini, Fabio Catani

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of subjects undergoing primary robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA), following functional alignment (FA) principles, with cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) bearing designs, at a minimum of 24 months of follow-up.

Methods

This observational, retrospective study included 167 consecutive patients undergoing RA-TKA with cemented PS and cementless CR implants performed with a CT-base robotic-arm assisted system (Mako, Stryker), following FA principles, between 2017 and 2020. Patients were followed up with a clinical and radiographic assessment and were administered the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR), and the 5-level Likert scale (5-LLS).

Results

Three TKA revisions were performed (2 PS, 1 CR); therefore, a total of 164 knees with a mean age of 71.7 years (SD 8.9) were considered (80 cemented PS; 84 cementless CR). No statistically significant differences were recorded between study groups relative to FJS-12, KOOS-JR, and 5-LLS at a minimum of two year follow-up (FJS-12 89.3 ± 9.2 vs 87.5 ± 12.8, p-value 0.46; KOOS-JR 88.8 ± 10.0 vs 86.7 ± 14.0, p-value 0.31; 5-LLS 4.5 ± 0.7 vs 4.5 ± 0.8, p-value 0.34).

Conclusion

No significant outcome differences were reported between patients undergoing PS and CR RA-TKA at a minimum of two year follow-up. RA-TKA achieves excellent clinical results and high satisfaction scores, regardless of the implant design used.

Wylde V, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID (2007) Total knee replacement: is it really an effective procedure for all? Knee 14:417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.06.001CrossRefPubMed

Nam D, Nunley RM, Barrack RL (2014) Patient dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a growing concern? Bone Joint J 96B:96–100. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34152CrossRef

Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM et al (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9CrossRefPubMed

Kayani B, Haddad FS (2019) Robotic total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and directions for future research. Bone Joint Res 8:438–442. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0175CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Batailler C, Fernandez A, Swan J et al (2021) MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3585–3598. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00167-020-06283-ZCrossRefPubMed

Hess S, Moser LB, Amsler F et al (2019) Highly variable coronal tibial and femoral alignment in osteoarthritic knees: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1368–1377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05506-2CrossRefPubMed

Howell SM, Howell SJ, Kuznik KT et al (2013) Does a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty restore function without failure regardless of alignment category? Knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1000–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2613-zCrossRefPubMed

Teeter MG, Naudie DD, McCalden RW et al (2018) Varus tibial alignment is associated with greater tibial baseplate migration at 10 years following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1610–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4765-6CrossRefPubMed

Rivière C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E et al (2017) Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010CrossRefPubMed

10.

Zambianchi F, Giorgini A, Ensini A et al (2021) Navigated, soft tissue-guided total knee arthroplasty restores the distal femoral joint line orientation in a modified mechanically aligned technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:966–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06056-8CrossRefPubMed

11.

Almaawi AM, Hutt JRB, Masse V et al (2017) The impact of mechanical and restricted kinematic alignment on knee anatomy in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:2133–2140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.028CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J et al (2020) A prospective double-blinded randomised control trial comparing robotic arm-assisted functionally aligned total knee arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4123-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Winnock de Grave P, Luyckx T, Claeys K et al (2022) Higher satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty using restricted inverse kinematic alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:488–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06165-4CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zambianchi F, Bazzan G, Marcovigi A et al (2021) Joint line is restored in robotic-arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty performed with a tibia-based functional alignment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141:2175–2184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04039-zCrossRefPubMed

15.

Li N, Tan Y, Deng Y, Chen L (2014) Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:556–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2275-0CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kayani B, Konan S, Horriat S et al (2019) Posterior cruciate ligament resection in total knee arthroplasty: the effect on flexion-extension gaps, mediolateral laxity, and fixed flexion deformity. Bone Joint J 101-B:1230–1237. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B10.BJJ-2018-1428.R2CrossRefPubMed

17.

Murakami K, Hamai S, Okazaki K et al (2017) Kinematic analysis of stair climbing in rotating platform cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:701–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2662-6CrossRefPubMed

18.

Serna-Berna R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Vizcaya-Moreno MF et al (2018) Cruciate-retaining vs posterior-stabilized primary total arthroplasty. clinical outcome comparison with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. J Arthroplasty 33:2491–2495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.094CrossRefPubMed

19.

Migliorini F, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Rath B (2019) Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retained implants for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:937–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02370-1CrossRefPubMed

20.

Longo UG, Ciuffreda M, Mannering N et al (2018) Outcomes of posterior-stabilized compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 31:321–340. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1603902CrossRefPubMed

21.

Richards JA, Williams MD, Gupta NA et al (2022) No difference in PROMs between robotic-assisted CR versus PS total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01352-yCrossRefPubMed

22.

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. Validation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lyman S, Lee YY, Franklin PD et al (2016) Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS (2018) Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty 33:2496–2501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS et al (2018) What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:2432–2441. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Holtz N, Hamilton DF, Giesinger JM et al (2020) Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03415-xCrossRef

27.

Kolisek FR, McGrath MS, Marker DR et al (2009) Posterior-stabilized versus posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J 29:23–27PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Bercik MJ, Joshi A, Parvizi J (2013) Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 28:439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.08.008CrossRefPubMed

29.

Hamai S, Okazaki K, Shimoto T et al (2015) Continuous sagittal radiological evaluation of stair-climbing in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties using image-matching techniques. J Arthroplasty 30:864–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.12.027CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bieganowski T, Fiedler B, Singh V et al (2022) Does retention of the posterior cruciate ligament lead to a more “Forgotten Joint” following total knee arthroplasty? Surg Technol Int 40:329–334. https://doi.org/10.52198/22.STI.40.OS1538CrossRefPubMed

31.

Smith AF, Eccles CJ, Bhimani SJ et al (2021) Improved patient satisfaction following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 34:730–738. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0039-1700837CrossRefPubMed

32.

Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Anis HK et al (2019) One-year patient outcomes for robotic-arm-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 32:1063–1068. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0039-1683977CrossRefPubMed

33.

Agarwal N, To K, McDonnell S, Khan W (2020) Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 35:3393-3409.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2020.03.005CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sappey-Marinier E, Batailler C, Swan J et al (2022) Mechanical alignment for primary TKA may change both knee phenotype and joint line obliquity without influencing clinical outcomes: a study comparing restored and unrestored joint line obliquity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00167-021-06674-WCrossRefPubMed

Title: No difference in clinical outcomes between functionally aligned cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Valerio Daffara
Francesco Zambianchi
Gabriele Bazzan
Nikita Matveitchouk
Alessandro Berni
Laura Piacentini
Riccardo Cuoghi Costantini
Fabio Catani
Publication date: 17-01-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05693-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

No difference in clinical outcomes between functionally aligned cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Post-operative complications of total knee arthroplasty in patients with hypertension

Letter to the Editor: “Arthroscopic capsular release versus manipulation under anaesthesia for treating frozen shoulder — a prospective randomised study”

Software-related recalls in computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty

Effect of total knee arthroplasty for valgus knee correction on clinical outcome and patellar position

Is three-dimension-printed mesh scaffold an alternative to reconstruct cavity bone defects near joints?

Revisiting prediction of collapse in hip osteonecrosis with artificial intelligence and machine learning: a new approach for quantifying and ranking the contribution and association of factors for collapse