The ROSA robotic-arm system reliably restores joint line height, patella height and posterior condylar offset in total knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in the use of robotic TKA to improve accuracy of component positioning in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of implant component position using the ROSA® knee system with specific reference to Joint Line Height, Patella Height and Posterior Condylar Offset (PCO). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of a prospectively-maintained database of the initial 100 consecutive TKAs performed by a high volume surgeon using the ROSA® knee system. Both the image-based and imageless workflow were used and two prosthesis types were implanted. To determine the accuracy of component positioning, the immediate post-operative radiograph was reviewed and compared with the immediate pre-operative radiograph with regards to Joint Line Height, Patella Height and Posterior Condylar Offset. RESULTS: 100 consecutive patients undergoing TKA using the ROSA system were included; mean age 70 years (range 49-95 years). Mean change in joint line height was 0.2 mm, patella height (Insall-Salvati ratio) 0.01 and posterior condylar offset 0.02 mm; there was no statistically significant difference between the pre and post-operative values. No difference was demonstrated between image-based or imageless workflows, or between implant design (Persona versus Vanguard) regarding joint line height, patella height and PCO. CONCLUSION: This study validates the use of the ROSA® knee system in accurately restoring Joint Line Height, Patella Height and Posterior Condylar Offset in TKA surgery. No significant differences were found between imageless and image-based groups, or between implant designs (Persona versus Vanguard).

Mako versus ROSA: comparing surgical accuracy in robotic total knee arthroplasty.

There is increasing adoption of robotic surgical technology in Total Knee Arthroplasty. The ROSA® knee system can be used in either image-based mode (using pre-operative calibrated radiographs) or imageless modes (using intra-operative bony registration). The Mako knee system is an image-based system (using a pre-operative CT scan). This study aimed to compare surgical accuracy between the ROSA and Mako systems with specific reference to joint line height, patella height, posterior condylar offset and tibial slope. This was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected data of the initial 50 consecutive ROSA TKAs and the initial 50 consecutive Mako TKAs performed by two high-volume surgeons. To determine the accuracy of component positioning, the immediate post-operative radiograph was reviewed and compared with the immediate pre-operative radiograph with regards to joint line height (JLH), patella height (PH), tibial slope (TS) and posterior condylar offset (PCO). Mean difference between pre- and post-operative radiographs using the ROSA knee system of joint line height was 0.47 mm (SD 0.95) posterior condylar offset 0.16 mm (SD 0.76), tibial slope 0.9 degrees (SD 1.6) and patella height 0.01 (SD 0.05). Mean difference using the MAKO knee system of joint line height was 0.26 (SD 1.08), posterior condylar offset -0.26 mm (SD 0.78), tibial slope 1.8 degrees and patella height 0.03. No significant difference was demonstrated between the accuracy of component positioning of the ROSA or MAKO knee systems. Our study is the first study to compare the accuracy of the ROSA and MAKO knee systems in total knee arthroplasty. Both systems are highly accurate in restoring native posterior condylar offset, joint line height, tibial slope and patella height in TKA with no significant difference demonstrated between the two groups.

The perceptions of clinicians using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for orthopaedic pathology: A national qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a non-invasive treatment modality for delayed union or non-union of acute fractures. We aimed to assess the current use of LIPUS at a national level in the United Kingdom, why and how clinicians use it, what treatment protocols are followed, and what the current perceptions are on this technology. METHODOLOGY: Using a detailed online survey compromised of 20 questions delivered to known LIPUS users, we were able to collect qualitative data on indication of use, type of machine used, personal views on the technology, frequency of usage, and treatment protocols. Each question was peer-reviewed to exclude bias. RESULTS: A total of 70 respondents completed the survey. LIPUS was used by most clinicians for cases of non-union (N = 55, 78.5%) and delayed union (N = 51, 72.8%). The majority of respondents personally used a LIPUS device between 1 and 5 times in 12 months (N = 38, 54.3%). Most considered LIPUS a failure after three to six months of treatment without clinical improvement (N = 39, 55.7%). A total of 32 respondents (45.7%) mentioned the need for funding approval before accessing LIPUS technology. Poor revision surgery candidates (N = 48, 68.6%) and atrophic non-union (N = 46, 65.7%) were the most frequently cited reasons for using LIPUS technology as treatment. Most participants (N = 48, 68.6%) considered LIPUS to be cost-effective. Despite most clinicians being comfortable with the use of LIPUS, some respondents did not understand the basic science underpinning the technology nor could explain the need for LIPUS to patients comfortably. CONCLUSION: LIPUS technology may have a significant role to play in the treatment of orthopaedic fracture related pathology. Regular users perceived the technology to be cost-effective and efficacious. Further research should standardize treatment protocols and aim to establish a national LIPUS registry.