Discrepancies in Sagittal Alignment of the Lower Extremity Among Different Brands of Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty Systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of different brands of robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. Most robotic TKA systems share the same coronal alignment, while the definitions of sagittal alignment vary. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether these discrepancies impact the sagittal alignment of the lower extremity. METHODS: A total of 72 lower extremity computed tomography scans were included in our study, and 3-dimensional models were obtained using software. A total of 7 brands of robotic TKA systems were included in the study. The lower extremity axes were defined based on the surgical guide for each implant. We also set the intramedullary axis as a reference to evaluate the discrepancies in sagittal alignment of each brand of robotic system. RESULTS: On the femoral side, the axis definition was the same for all 7 robotic TKA systems. The robotic TKA axes showed a 2.41° (1.58°, 3.38°) deviation from the intramedullary axis. On the tibial side, the 7 robots had different axis definitions. The tibial mechanical axis of 6 of the TKA systems was more flexed than that of the intramedullary axis, which means the posterior tibial slope was decreased while the tibial mechanical axis of the remaining system was more extended. CONCLUSIONS: The sagittal alignment of the lower extremity for 7 different brands of robotic TKA systems differed from each other and all deviated from the intramedullary axis. Surgeons should be aware of this discrepancy when using different brands of robotic TKA systems to avoid unexpected sagittal alignment and corresponding adverse clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Therapeutic Study.

Efficacy of the newly designed "SkyWalker" robot compared to the MAKO robotic system in primary total knee arthroplasty: a one-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: Robot-assisted surgical systems for performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have gained significant attention. This study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes in primary TKA surgery between the recently developed "SkyWalker" robot system and the more commonly used MAKO robot. METHODS: A total of 75 patients undergoing primary TKA surgery by the same surgical team were included in this study, with 30 patients in the "SkyWalker" group and 45 patients in the "MAKO" group. We documented the osteotomy plan for both robotic systems. The lower limb alignment angles were evaluated by postoperative radiographic assessment. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stays, and changes in laboratory indexes were collected during hospitalization. In addition, a comparative evaluation of knee functional assessments and complications was conducted during six month and one year follow-ups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the accuracy of restoring lower limb alignment, estimated blood loss, or operation time. The knee function assessments at six months and one year postoperatively were similar in both groups. Except for day three after surgery, the level of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the change in IL-6 (∆IL-6) from preoperative baseline were higher in the "SkyWalker" group than in the MAKO group (median: 20.53 vs. 14.17, P=0.050 and median: 17.30 vs. 10.09, P=0.042, respectively). Additionally, one patient from the MAKO group underwent revision surgery at nine months postoperatively due to ongoing periprosthetic discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed "SkyWalker" robot showed comparable efficacy to the MAKO robot in terms of lower limb alignment accuracy and postoperative six month and one year follow-up of clinically assessed resumption of knee function.

Why robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty aborted: Chinese experience of four hundred and twenty nine consecutive cases.

PURPOSE: Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) helps with precise orientation of the prosthesis, but some RA-THA procedures are aborted intraoperatively and are converted to manual total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to analyse why RA-THA is sometimes aborted intraoperatively and to make recommendations accordingly. METHODS: A total of 429 consecutive Mako THA cases in our prospective database from August 2018 to June 2021 were included in our study. All robotic procedures aborted intraoperatively for any reason were recorded. The patients' demographics, diagnoses, and surgeons' information were included in the statistical analysis to pinpoint the risk factors for intraoperative robot to manual conversion. RESULTS: Intraoperative RA-THA abortions occurred in 17 cases (3.96%) and the patients had to be converted to manual THA. The adverse events leading to intraoperative abortions included pelvic array loosening or malposition (5, 1.17%), inaccurate bone mapping or construction (6, 1.40%), inaccurate initial registration (4, 0.93%), and other reasons (2, 0.47%). CONCLUSION: Robot-related adverse events could be found in all perioperative steps of RA-THA, and some of these events might result in intraoperative abortion. Complex hip disease was a statistically significant factor for an increased risk of intraoperative abortion of RA-THA. Standardized surgical procedures and preoperative assessments can be helpful in reducing the rate of RA-THA abortions.

Sagittal Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Are There Any Discrepancies Between Robotic-Assisted and Manual Axis Orientation?

BACKGROUND: Sagittal alignment determines the extension and flexion of knee prostheses in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The definition of the sagittal axes may be different between the Mako TKA system (Stryker) and the conventional manual intramedullary approach. Whether there is any discrepancy between the 2 approaches has not been well studied. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 60 full-length computed tomographic (CT) scans of the lower extremities of 54 patients. The femur and tibia were modeled by using Mimics (Materialise). The Mako mechanical axes were determined according to the Mako TKA Surgical Guide. The manual intramedullary axes were determined according to the central axis of the tibial proximal and femoral distal medullary cavities. The femoral, tibial, and combined angular discrepancies were measured in the sagittal plane. RESULTS: On the femoral side, the Mako mechanical axis was more likely to be located in an extended position relative to the manual intramedullary axis (56 of 60 knees). The median angular discrepancy was 2.46° (interquartile range [IQR], 1.56° to 3.43° [range, -1.06° to 5.24°]). On the tibial side, the Mako mechanical axis was likely to be located in a flexed position relative to the manual intramedullary axis (57 of 60 knees). The median angular discrepancy was 2.40° (IQR, 1.87° to 2.84° [range, -0.79° to 4.20°]). The angular discrepancy of the femoral-tibial sagittal angle was 4.63° (IQR, 3.71° to 5.64° [range, 1.20° to 9.02°]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with manual TKA, the Mako system is more likely to result in a decreased posterior tibial slope and extension of the femoral prosthesis. It may also influence the evaluation of lower-extremity extension and flexion. When using the Mako system, special attention should be given to these discrepancies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.