Learning curve for active robotic total knee arthroplasty.
Active
Autonomous
Learning curve
Robotic
Safety
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
31
07
2020
accepted:
11
01
2021
pubmed:
22
2
2021
medline:
27
7
2022
entrez:
21
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) procedures incorporate technology in an attempt to improve outcomes. The Active Robot (ARo) performs a TKA with automated resections of the tibia and femur in efforts to optimize bone cuts. Evaluating the Learning Curve (LC) is essential with a novel tool. The purpose of this study was to assess the associated LC of ARo for TKA. A multi-center prospective FDA cohort study was conducted from 2017 to 2018 including 115 patients that underwent ARo. Surgical time of the ARo was defined as Operative time (OT), segmented as surgeon-dependent time (patient preparation and registration) and surgeon-independent time (autonomous bone resection by the ARo). An average LC for all surgeons was computed. Complication rates and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were recorded and examined to evaluate for any LC trends in these patient related factors. The OT for the cases 10-12 were significantly quicker than the OT time of cases 1-3 (p < 0.028), at 36.5 ± 7.4 down from 49.1 ± 17 min. CUSUM and confidence interval analysis of the surgeon-dependent time showed different LCs for each surgeon, ranging from 12 to 19 cases. There was no difference in device related complications or PRO scores over the study timeframe. Active Robotic total knee arthroplasty is associated with a short learning curve of 10-20 cases. The learning curve was associated with the surgical time dedicated to the robotic specific portion of the case. There was no learning curve-associated device-related complications, three-dimensional component position, or patient-reported outcome scores. Level II.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33611607
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06452-8
pii: 10.1007/s00167-021-06452-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2666-2676Informations de copyright
© 2021. European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
Références
Berndt K, Rahm S, Dora C, Zingg PO (2019) Total hip arthroplasty with accolade/trident through the direct minimally invasive anterior approach without traction table: learning curve and results after a minimum of 5 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105:931–936
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.05.008
Boylan M, Suchman K, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Bosco J (2018) Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplasty 33:1019–1023
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.033
Camp CL, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, Regnier TD, Mills KM, Turner NS (2016) Improving resident performance in knee arthroscopy: a prospective value assessment of simulators and cadaveric skills laboratories. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:220–225
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00440
Cannon WD, Garrett WE Jr, Hunter RE, Sweeney HJ, Eckhoff DG, Nicandri GT et al (2014) Improving residency training in arthroscopic knee surgery with use of a virtual-reality simulator. A randomized blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1798–1806
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00058
Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB (2018) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 33:1994–2001
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.050
de Steiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M (2015) What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:3860–3866
doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4565-6
Ezzibdeh RM, Barrett AA, Arora P, Amanatullah DF (2020) Learning curve for the direct superior approach to total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20200404-051-7
doi: 10.3928/01477447-20200404-051-7
pubmed: 32271934
Geller JA, Rossington A, Mitra R, Jaramaz B, Khare R, Netravali NA. Rate of learning curve and alignment accuracy of an image-free handheld robot for total knee arthroplasty. Abstract number O44 presented at: European Knee Society; May 2–3, 2019; Valencia, Spain
Gofton WT, Papp SR, Gofton T, Beaule PE (2016) Understanding and taking control of surgical learning curves. Instr Course Lect 65:623–631
pubmed: 27049228
Gofton WT, Solomon M, Gofton T, Page A, Kim PR, Netting C et al (2016) What do reported learning curves mean for orthopaedic surgeons? Instr Course Lect 65:633–643
pubmed: 27049229
Hartford JM, Bellino MJ (2017) The learning curve for the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a single surgeon’s first 500 cases. Hip Int 27:483–488
doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000488
Jacofsky DJ, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 31:2353–2363
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026
Jeon SW, Kim KI, Song SJ (2019) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty does not improve long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 34:1656–1661
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.007
Kaper B (2020) Learning curve and time commitment assessment in the adoption of NAVIO robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic proceedings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 102(Suppl 1):59
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00108
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS (2019) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1132–1141
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5
Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS (2018) The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 100-B:1033–1042
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0040.R1
Keggi J, Plaskos C (2017) Learning curve and early patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic proceedings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 99(Suppl 4):59–59
Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN, Tay DK, Yeo SJ (2017) THINK surgical TSolution-One((R)) (Robodoc) total knee arthroplasty. SICOT J 3:63
doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2017052
Lonner JH, Fillingham YA (2018) Pros and cons: a balanced view of robotics in knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:2007–2013
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.056
Mabrey JD, Reinig KD, Cannon WD (2010) Virtual reality in orthopaedics: is it a reality? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2586–2591
doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1426-1
Smith AF, Eccles CJ, Bhimani SJ, Denehy KM, Bhimani RB, Smith LS et al (2019) Improved patient satisfaction following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700837
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1700837
pubmed: 31731324
Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS, Sultan AA, Marchand RC, Malkani AL et al (2018) The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 31:17–21
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608809
Stulberg B, Zadzilka J, Kreuzer SW, Long W, Kissin Y, Liebelt RA, Zuhars J (2020) Results of an active robotic total knee arthroplasty us trial. Orthopaedic proceedings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 102(Suppl 2):9
Vermue H, Luyckx T, Winnock de Grave P, Ryckaert A, Cools AS, Himpe N, Victor J (2020) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with a learning curve for surgical time but not for component alignment, limb alignment and gap balancing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06341-6
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06341-6
pubmed: 33141246