RESUMO
Background/Objectives: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a frequent procedure in orthopedic surgery. Advances in TKA include the development of robotic-assisted systems. Training in raTKA entails a learning curve to achieve proficiency comparable to conventional manual TKA (maTKA). Methods: We conducted a prospective study of the learning curve in raTKA using the Robotic Surgical Assistant (ROSA) Knee System. The study included 180 patients (90 raTKAs; 90 maTKAs) and three surgeons (one with >15 years of experience in maTKA). The cumulative sum control chart method (CUSUM) was used to define the transition from the learning phase to the mastered phase in raTKA. Results: The learning curves were 43 cases (experienced surgeons) and 61 cases (all surgeons). Mean operative times for both phases in raTKA were longer than in maTKA (p < 0.001). In raTKA, operative times in the learning phase were longer compared to those in the mastered phase (p < 0.001). Operative times in the learning and mastered phases for all surgeons in raTKA were significantly longer compared to those in maTKA (p < 0.001); however, operative times of the experienced surgeon in the mastered phase of raTKA and in maTKA showed no differences. Conclusions: The learning curve in raTKA is dependent upon the surgeon's previous experience in maTKA.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Porous tantalum is an option of cementless fixation for TKA, but there is no randomized comparison with a cemented implant in a mid-term followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether a tibial component fixed by a porous tantalum system might achieve (1) better clinical outcome as reflected by the Knee Society Score (KSS) and WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, (2) fewer complications and reoperations, and (3) improved radiographic results with respect to aseptic loosening compared with a conventional cemented implant. METHODS: We randomized 145 patients into two groups, either a porous tantalum cementless tibial component group (Group 1) or cemented conventional tibial component in posterior cruciate retaining TKA group (Group 2). Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 15 days, 6 months, and 5 years after surgery, using the KSS and the WOMAC index. Complications, reoperations, and radiographic failures were tallied. RESULTS: At 5-year followup the KSS mean was 90.4 (range, 68-100; 95% CI, ± 1.6) for Group 1, and 86.5 (range, 56-99; 95% CI, ± 2.4) for Group 2. The effect size, at 95% CI for the difference between means, was 3.88 ± 2.87. The WOMAC mean was 15.1 (range, 0-51; 95% CI, ± 2.6) for the Group 1, and 19.1 (range, 4-61; 95% CI, ± 2.9) for Group 2. The effect size for WOMAC was -4.0 ± 3.9. There were no differences in the frequency of complications or in aseptic loosening between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest there are small differences between the uncemented porous tantalum tibial component and the conventional cemented tibial component. It currently is undetermined whether the differences outweigh the cost of the implant and the results of their long-term performance.