Adoption of robotics in arthroplasty- a survey of perceptions, utilization and challenges with technology amongst Indian surgeons.

Introduction: Total joint replacement surgeries are standard procedures for managing end-stage hip or knee arthritis. Despite advances in technology, some patients experience dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Robotic technology has evolved significantly and has shown promise in improving component positioning, alignment, and surgical outcomes. However, the widespread adoption of robotics in arthroplasty faces challenges such as high costs, a steep learning curve, and limited evidence on long-term outcomes. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study used a structured self-administered online survey to assess the perceptions of Indian arthroplasty surgeons regarding robotic technology. The survey included questions about the surgeon's background, experience, perceptions of robotic joint replacement, and limiting factors for robotic usage. A total of 417 responses were collected from practising arthroplasty surgeons. Results: Most participants(78.1 %) expressed a willingness to adopt robotics in their arthroplasty practice if the cost of installation was reduced. Robotic users were more convinced about the benefits of robotics, including improved alignment, reduced pain, faster rehabilitation, and better outcomes. High-volume robotic surgeons demonstrated a greater belief in the broader potential of robotics beyond implant positioning and alignment. The major barriers to adoption were the high cost of installation and limited insurance coverage for robotic-assisted procedures. Lack of formal robotic training opportunities, resistance from corporate management, patient acceptance issues, and limited published literature supporting robotic advantages were also cited as limiting factors. Conclusion: Robotic technology is increasingly being adopted in India for TKA. The main obstacle to widespread adoption is the high cost of installation. As technology costs decrease, we can expect a rise in the number of installations across the country. Advocacy from national orthopaedic organizations may be needed to address insurance reimbursement challenges. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the perceptions and challenges associated with the adoption of robotic technology in arthroplasty in India.

Patella non-resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty provides good functional results-a retrospective review of nine thousand three hundred forty six knees.

PURPOSE: Patellar resurfacing has long been a contentious subject in TKA with no consensus and the literature yielding disparate results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term functional outcomes and complications of patients undergoing primary TKA without patellar resurfacing (non-resurfacing). METHODS: This study retrospectively analysed 9346 patients who underwent primary manual jig-based TKA without patellar resurfacing at a single high-volume arthroplasty centre between 2010 and 2018. Patients with a minimum three year follow-up irrespective of disease etiology and implant manufacturer were included in the study. Primary outcome was measured using Oxford knee score and patellofemoral Feller score. Secondary outcomes included determining the incidence of patellofemoral complications and re-operation rates following TKA. RESULTS: A total of 8695 knees were eligible for final evaluation having a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Mean age of the patients was 62.6 (SD-7.5) years with female predominance of (N-6619, 70.8%). The majority of the patients had primary OA (N-8792, 94.1%) with varus deformity (N-8642, 92.46%). Depuy was the most used manufacturer (n = 2592, 26.4%) with the posterior stabilised (N-4127, 44.2%) design being the most predominant. The mean Feller score of the study population was 24.5 (SD = 3) with a majority of patients having good to excellent outcomes (86.95%, N-8424) and mean Oxford knee score was 36.9 (SD-6.9) with a majority of the patients having an OKS greater than 30 (87.1%, N-8133) with anterior knee pain (AKP) reported in only 4.8% patients (N-418). Most common complications included patellar clunk (N-56, 0.7%), traumatic patellar fractures (N-62, 0.8%), quadriceps tendon tear (N-54, 0.7%) and patellar dislocation (N-4, 0.05%) CONCLUSION: Patellar non-resurfacing has no detrimental impact on functional outcomes and incidence of AKP. We conclude that it is a safe, cost-effective and satisfactory approach in primary TKA with no significant complications.

Partial versus total knee arthroplasty for isolated antero-medial osteoarthritis - An analysis of PROMs and satisfaction.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the patient-reported functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) versus Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), performed for anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee in patients from an Indian population, at a minimum 3-year follow-up. METHODS: This is a prospective matched cohort study (1:2 ratio). One hundred and one UKA cases were matched to 206 TKA cases by propensity score matching for age, body mass index (BMI), gender distribution, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary outcome (Oxford knee score, OKS) was assessed at a 3-year follow-up, along with secondary outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] Score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Anterior Knee Pain (Kujala) score, patient satisfaction, and revision rate at the final follow-up). RESULTS: The UKA group was superior to the TKA group in patient-reported functional outcomes based on the OKS (p = 0.004). Using the FJS score, UKA was more likely to be a forgotten joint compared to TKA (p < 0.001). However, differences in the OKS and FJS did not meet the reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. Quality of life (EuroQol-5D VAS scale) was found to be significantly higher in the UKA group (p < 0.001). Patients in the UKA group were more likely to be very satisfied (75.2%) versus the TKA group (62.1%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: For AMOA, UKA was associated with improved patient satisfaction compared to TKA. Although patient-reported outcome measures were statistically in favour of UKA over TKA, the differences were not clinically significant. Multicenter and randomized studies comparing the two procedures are warranted. EVIDENCE: Level-II Therapeutic.