Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with the use of thinner polyethylene liners compared to navigation-guided and manual techniques.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of intraoperative technology use on the rate of using polyethylene liners 15 mm or greater during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: There were 103,295 implants from 16,386 primary unilateral TKAs performed on 14,253 patients at a single institution between 1 January 2018, and 30 June 2022, included in the current study. Robotic assistance and navigation guidance were used in 1274 (8%) and 8345 (51%) procedures, respectively. The remaining 6767 TKAs (41%) were performed manually. Polyethylene liners were manually identified and further subcategorised by implant thickness. Patients who underwent robotic-assisted TKA were younger (p < 0.001) and more likely to be male (p < 0.001) compared to patients who underwent navigation-guided or manual TKAs. RESULTS: Average polyethylene liner thickness was similar between groups (10.5 ± 1.5 mm for robotic-assisted TKAs, 10.9 ± 1.8 mm for navigation-guided TKAs and 10.8 ± 1.8 mm for manual TKAs). The proportions of polyethylene liners 15 mm or greater used were 4.9%, 3.8% and 1.9% for navigation-guided, manual and robotic-assisted procedures, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that navigation-guided (odds ratio [OR]: 2.6, 95% confidence Interval [CI]: [1.75-4.07], p < 0.001) and manual (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: [1.34-3.20], p = 0.001) procedures were associated with an increased use of polyethylene liners 15 mm or greater. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted TKA was associated with a lower proportion of polyethylene liners 15 mm or greater used compared to navigation-guided and manual TKA. These findings suggest that robotic assistance can reduce human error via a more precise cutting system, limit over-resection of the tibia and flexion-extension gap mismatch and ultimately allow for more appropriately sized implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
