The first experience of using a new generation of active robot in primary total knee arthroplasty

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. 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. 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. 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.

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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/

6. 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.

7. 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/

8. 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.

9. 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/

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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; 34:409-413

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.]

18. Lychagin 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.]

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.