jktoКафедра травматологии и ортопедииDepartment of Traumatology and Orthopaedics2226-2016ПРОФИЛЬ — 2С10.17238/2226-2016-2024-1-22-29jkto-17Research ArticleОРИГИНАЛЬНОЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕORIGINAL RESEARCHПервый опыт применения новой генерации активного робота в первичном тотальном эндопротезировании коленного суставаThe first experience of using a new generation of active robot in primary total knee arthroplastyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2202-8149ЛычагинА. В.LychaginA. V.

Лычагин Алексей Владимирович – доктор мед. наук, директор клиники, заведующий кафедрой травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф, профессор кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89166389545

Москва, 119991

Lychagin Alexey Vladimirovich – Director of the Clinic, Head of the Department I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery, Professor. PhD in Medical Science

89166389545

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4202-4468ГрицюкА. А.GritsyukA. A.

Грицюк Андрей Анатольевич – доктор мед. наук, профессор кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89166147666

Москва, 119991

Gritsyuk Andrey Anatolyevich – I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery, Professor. PhD in Medical Science

89166147666

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

drgaamma@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-8556РукинЯ. А.RukinY. A.

Рукин Ярослав Алексеевич – кандидат мед. наук, pаведующий травматолого-ортопедическим отделением, доцент кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89104779711

Москва, 119991

Rukin Yaroslav Alekseevich – Head of the Traumatology and Orthopedic, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery PhD, Assistant professor of the Department

89104779711

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

yar.rukin@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4811-5718ЕлизаровМ. П.ElizarovM. P.

Елизаров Михаил Павлович – кандидат мед. наук, ассистент кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89162165338

Москва, 119991

Elizarov Mikhail Pavlovich – I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery PhD, assistant of the Department

89162165338

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

elizarovm07@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3135-7526ГрицюкА. А.GritsyukA. A.

Грицюк Андрей Андреевич – аспирант кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89998372360

Москва, 119991

Gritsyuk Andrey Аndreevich – I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery. Postgraduate student

89998372360

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

andrewgritsru@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0009-0002-8854-6843ГавловскийМ. Я.GavlovskyM. Y.

Гавловский Максим Ярославович – fспирант кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89100132671

Москва, 119991

Gavlovsky Maxim Yaroslavovich – I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery. Postgraduate student

89100132671

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

gavlovsky.m@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-2342-504XТомбоидиК. Х.TomboidiK. K.

Томбоиди Константин Хадисович – клинический ординатор кафедры травматологии, ортопедии и хирургии катастроф

89197372543

Москва, 119991

Tomboidi Konstantin Khadisovich– I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery. Clinical resident

89197372543

8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow, 119991

tomboidi98@mail.ruФГАОУ ВО Первого Московского государственного медицинского университета имени И. М. Сеченова Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации (Сеченовский Университет)РоссияFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education First Moscow State Medical University named after I.M. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)Russian Federation202413032026012229Copyright © Лычагин А.В., Грицюк А.А., Рукин Я.А., Елизаров М.П., Грицюк А.А., Гавловский М.Я., Томбоиди К.Х., 20262026Лычагин А.В., Грицюк А.А., Рукин Я.А., Елизаров М.П., Грицюк А.А., Гавловский М.Я., Томбоиди К.Х.Lychagin A.V., Gritsyuk A.A., Rukin Y.A., Elizarov M.P., Gritsyuk A.A., Gavlovsky M.Y., Tomboidi K.K.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.jkto.moscow/jour/article/view/17Введение

Введение. Тотальное эндопротезирование коленного сустава с помощью робота является быстро развивающейся областью, в настоящее время появляются новые системы роботов поэтому в этой статье обобщается текущий статус роботизированной технологии, обсуждаются ее преимущества и недостатки.

Целью исследования явилось сравнение преимуществ и недостатков новой активной роботизированной системы и их влияние на общую длительность операции.

Материалы и методы

Материалы и методы. Проведено проспективное одноцентровое исследование результатов интраоперационного тайминга у 45 пациентов (12 мужчин и 33 женщины, со средним возрастом 65,9±7,4 лет, средний ИМТ – 31,3±4,7 кг/м2 с применением CJ150 CUVIS Joint® при тотальной артропластике колена, в сравнении с T-Solution One.

Результаты

Результаты. При проведении сравнительного анализа, выявлено статистически достоверное уменьшение общего времени операции при применении новой системы CUVIS на 33,7% меньше (111,5±15,9 мин, 168,2±29,9 мин, при р <0,001), чем при T-Solution One.

Обсуждение

Обсуждение. Основной проблемой активных роботов было увеличение времени операции, но мы можем сказать, что новая генерация активного робота значительно «быстрее» предыдущей за счет, автоматизированной предоперационной подготовки, удобного интерфейса и схемы регистрации, простой фиксации робота, изменяемой скорости движения фрезы, меньших габаритов и большей маневренности.

Заключение

Заключение. Будущее тотального эндопротезирования коленного сустава, несомненно, связано с роботизированными технологиями, которые показывают бурный рост, хотя в какой степени и в каком объеме это будет зависеть от дальнейших высококачественных исследований, оценивающих долгосрочные результаты, осложнения, выживаемость и анализ затрат и выгод.

Introduction

Introduction. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty is a rapidly evolving field, with new robotic systems currently emerging, so this article summarizes the status of robotic technology and discusses its advantages and disadvantages.

The purpose of the study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of a new active robotic system and their impact on the overall duration of the operation.

Materials and methods

Materials and methods. A prospective single-center study of the results of intraoperative timing was conducted in 45 patients (12 men and 33 women, with an average age of 65.9 ± 7.4 years, average BMI - 31.3 ± 4.7 kg/m2 using CJ150 CUVIS Joint® for total knee arthroplasty, compared with T-Solution One.

Results

Results. When conducting a comparative analysis, a statistically significant decrease in the total operation time was revealed when using the new CUVIS system - 33.7% less (111.5±15.9 min, 168.2±29.9 min, with p <0.001) than with T-Solution One.>

Discussion

Discussion. The main problem of active robots was the increase in operation time, but we can say that the new generation of active robot is much “faster” than the previous one due to automated preoperative preparation, convenient interface and registration scheme, simple fixation of the robot, variable speed of movement of the cutter, smaller dimensions, and greater maneuverability.

Conclusion The future of total knee arthroplasty undoubtedly lies in robotic technologies, which are showing rapid growth, although to what extent and to what extent this will depend on further high-quality studies assessing long-term outcomes, complications, survival and cost-benefit analysis.

коленный суставроботроботизированное тотальное эндопротезирование коленного суставаknee jointrobotrobotic total knee arthroplastyReferencesNational Joint Registry. National Joint Registry 17th annual report. 2020. https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/portals/0/pdfdownloads/njr%2017th%20annual%20report%202020.pdf (accessed 30 May 2023).National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry 17th annual report. 2020. https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/portals/0/pdfdownloads/njr%2017th%20annual%20report%202020.pdf (accessed 30 May 2023).Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7.Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7.Ramaskandhan J, Smith K, Kometa S, Chockalingam N, Siddique M. Total joint replacement of ankle, knee, and hip: how do patients perceive their operative outcomes at 10 years? Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021;6(3):247301142110227. https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114211022735.Ramaskandhan J, Smith K, Kometa S, Chockalingam N, Siddique M. Total joint replacement of ankle, knee, and hip: how do patients perceive their operative outcomes at 10 years? Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021;6(3):247301142110227. https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114211022735.Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Patient satisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty: contributing factors. Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2021;9(4):379–386. https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2020.46395.2274.Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Patient satisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty: contributing factors. Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2021;9(4):379–386. https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2020.46395.2274.Haddad FS. Evolving techniques: the need for better technology. Bone Joint J. 2017:99-B (2):145-146. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.38085/Haddad FS. Evolving techniques: the need for better technology. Bone Joint J. 2017:99-B (2):145-146. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.38085/Roussot MA, Vles GF, Oussedik S. Clinical outcomes of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(8):486–497. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190093.Roussot MA, Vles GF, Oussedik S. Clinical outcomes of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(8):486–497. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190093.Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML et al. Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction aſter total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2010.02.008/Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML et al. Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction aſter total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2010.02.008/Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(1_Supple_A):105–112. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36293.Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(1_Supple_A):105–112. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36293.Abdel MP, Ledford CK, Kobic A, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD. Contemporary failure aetiologies of the primary, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99B:647–652. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2016-0617.R3/Abdel MP, Ledford CK, Kobic A, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD. Contemporary failure aetiologies of the primary, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99B:647–652. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2016-0617.R3/Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: National projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(10):2606–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6.Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: National projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(10):2606–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6.Picard F, Clarke J, Deep K, Gregori A. Computer assisted knee replacement surgery: is the movement mainstream? Orthop Muscul Syst. 2014;3(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0533.1000153.Picard F, Clarke J, Deep K, Gregori A. Computer assisted knee replacement surgery: is the movement mainstream? Orthop Muscul Syst. 2014;3(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0533.1000153.Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Roboticassisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-012-2407-3.Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Roboticassisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-012-2407-3.Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY et al. Robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(3):239–250. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0038-1641729.Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY et al. Robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(3):239–250. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0038-1641729.Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the insall-salvati index compared to the manual technique; a cohortmatched study. Surg Technol Int. 2019; 34:409-413Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the insall-salvati index compared to the manual technique; a cohortmatched study. Surg Technol Int. 2019; 34:409-413Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN, Tay DKJ, Yeo SJ. THINK surgical TSolution-One®(Robodoc) total knee arthroplasty. 2017a; 3:63. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017052.Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN, Tay DKJ, Yeo SJ. THINK surgical TSolution-One®(Robodoc) total knee arthroplasty. 2017a; 3:63. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017052.Prakash R, Agrawal Y. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2023 Jun 2;84(6):1-9. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2022.0491. Epub 2023 Jun 23. PMID: 37364881.Prakash R, Agrawal Y. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2023 Jun 2;84(6):1-9. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2022.0491. Epub 2023 Jun 23. PMID: 37364881.Лычагин А. В., Грицюк А. А., Рукин Я. А., Елизаров М. П. История развития робототехники в хирургии и ортопедии (Обзор литературы)// Кафедра травматологии и ортопедии. 2020;1(39):13-19. DOI 10.17238/issn2226-2016.2020.1.13-19. – EDN TRLXFQ.Lychagin A. V., Gritsyuk A. A., Rukin YA. A., Elizarov M. P. Istoriya razvitiya robototekhniki v khirurgii i ortopedii (Obzor literatury)// Kafedra travmatologii i ortopedii. 2020;1(39):13-19. DOI 10.17238/issn2226-2016.2020.1.13-19. – EDN TRLXFQ.]Лычагин А. В., Грицюк А.А., Рукин Я. А., Елизаров М. П., Грицюк А.А., Гавловский М.Я., Богатов Т. В. Клиническая эффективность и точность выравнивания механической оси при роботизированном тотальном эндопротезировании коленного сустава. Гений ортопедии. 2023;29(5):487-494 https://doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2023-29-5-487-494. EDN: QKZVVFLychagin A. V., Gritsyuk A.A., Rukin YA. A., Elizarov M. P., Gritsyuk A.A., Gavlovskii M.YA., Bogatov T. V. Klinicheskaya ehffektivnost’ i tochnost’ vyravnivaniya mekhanicheskoi osi pri robotizirovannom total’nom ehndoprotezirovanii kolennogo sustava. Genii ortopedii. 2023;29(5):487-494. https://doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2023-29-5-487-494. EDN: QKZVVF.]Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Roboticassisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-012-2407-3.Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Roboticassisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-012-2407-3.Liow MHL, Xia Z, Wong MK et al. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the joint line and mechanical axis: a prospective randomised study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(12):2373–2377. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.010.Liow MHL, Xia Z, Wong MK et al. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the joint line and mechanical axis: a prospective randomised study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(12):2373–2377. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.010.Liow MHL, Goh GSH, Wong MK et al. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: a 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017b;25(9):2942–2951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3.Liow MHL, Goh GSH, Wong MK et al. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: a 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017b;25(9):2942–2951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3.Kim YH, Yoon SH, Park JW. Does robotic-assisted TKA result in better outcome scores or long-term survivorship than conventional TKA? A randomized, controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020; 478(2): 266– 275. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000916.Kim YH, Yoon SH, Park JW. Does robotic-assisted TKA result in better outcome scores or long-term survivorship than conventional TKA? A randomized, controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020; 478(2): 266– 275. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000916.Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7):1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2007.05.036.Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7):1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2007.05.036.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.