[Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis].
Marktübersicht: Roboterassistierte Endoprothetik : Aktuelle Robotersysteme, Lernkurven und Kostenanalyse.
Computer-assisted surgery
Image-guided surgery
Surgical navigation systems
Total hip replacement
Total knee replacement
Journal
Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)
ISSN: 2731-7153
Titre abrégé: Orthopadie (Heidelb)
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9918384887206676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
accepted:
11
07
2022
pubmed:
10
8
2022
medline:
2
9
2022
entrez:
9
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic-assisted arthroplasty has been rapidly entering clinical routine in recent years. The leading endoprosthesis manufacturers have all meanwhile placed robotic systems on the market, which, however, differ significantly from one another technically. Current systems are currently classified according to the degree of autonomy (active vs. semi-active vs. passive) and the data/image source (image-based: CT vs. X‑ray, imageless). Some systems already offer the possibility of robotic-assisted or navigated implantation of hip endoprostheses. In the following review article, the currently leading robotic systems will be presented and compared with regard to their characteristics. Furthermore, the analysis of the learning curves for the different systems, currently available cost analysis models and an outlook on future developments and challenges will be given. Die roboterassistierte Endoprothetik findet seit Jahren einen rasanten Einzug in die klinische Routine. Die führenden Endoprothesenhersteller haben mittlerweile alle Robotersysteme auf dem Markt platziert, welche sich jedoch technisch untereinander deutlich unterscheiden. Die Systeme werden aktuell nach dem Autonomiegrad (aktiv vs. semiaktiv vs. passiv) und der Daten‑/Bildquelle (Bildgestützt: CT vs. Röntgen, bildlos) eingeteilt. Einzelne Systeme bieten bereits jetzt schon die Möglichkeit, roboterassistiert oder navigiert Hüftendoprothesen zu implantieren. Im folgenden Übersichtsartikel sollen die aktuell führend verwendeten Robotersysteme vorgestellt und hinsichtlich der Eigenschaften verglichen werden. Im Weiteren soll auf die Analyse der Lernkurven für die unterschiedlichen Systeme und auf aktuell vorhandene Kostenanalysemodelle eingegangen werden sowie ein Ausblick auf künftige Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen gegeben werden.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
Die roboterassistierte Endoprothetik findet seit Jahren einen rasanten Einzug in die klinische Routine. Die führenden Endoprothesenhersteller haben mittlerweile alle Robotersysteme auf dem Markt platziert, welche sich jedoch technisch untereinander deutlich unterscheiden. Die Systeme werden aktuell nach dem Autonomiegrad (aktiv vs. semiaktiv vs. passiv) und der Daten‑/Bildquelle (Bildgestützt: CT vs. Röntgen, bildlos) eingeteilt. Einzelne Systeme bieten bereits jetzt schon die Möglichkeit, roboterassistiert oder navigiert Hüftendoprothesen zu implantieren. Im folgenden Übersichtsartikel sollen die aktuell führend verwendeten Robotersysteme vorgestellt und hinsichtlich der Eigenschaften verglichen werden. Im Weiteren soll auf die Analyse der Lernkurven für die unterschiedlichen Systeme und auf aktuell vorhandene Kostenanalysemodelle eingegangen werden sowie ein Ausblick auf künftige Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen gegeben werden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945459
doi: 10.1007/s00132-022-04286-x
pii: 10.1007/s00132-022-04286-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
727-738Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
Références
Ali M, Phillips D, Kamson A et al (2022) Learning curve of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty for non-fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons. Arthroplast Today 13:194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.10.020
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.10.020
pubmed: 35118183
pmcid: 8791856
Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM et al (2019) Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1232–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5
pubmed: 30066017
Bell C, Grau L, Orozco F et al (2021) The successful implementation of the Navio robotic technology required 29 cases. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01254-z
doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01254-z
pubmed: 34146231
Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B et al (2016) Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:627–635. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00664
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00664
pubmed: 27098321
Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J (2007) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:111–116. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c0
doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c0
pubmed: 17563698
Chen Z, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Palmer M et al (2022) Time-based learning curve for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1744193
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1744193
pubmed: 35944569
Cho K‑J, Seon J‑K, Jang W‑Y et al (2018) Objective quantification of ligament balancing using VERASENSE in measured resection and modified gap balance total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:266. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2190-8
doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2190-8
pubmed: 30053812
pmcid: 6064102
Christen B, Tanner L, Ettinger M et al (2022) Comparative cost analysis of four different computer-assisted technologies to implant a total knee arthroplasty over conventional instrumentation. JPM 12:184. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020184
doi: 10.3390/jpm12020184
pubmed: 35207672
pmcid: 8880057
Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT (2019) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J 101:1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2018-1658.R1
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2018-1658.R1
pubmed: 31474149
Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P et al (2006) Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17220
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17220
pubmed: 16434522
Cool CL, Jacofsky DJ, Seeger KA et al (2019) A 90-day episode-of-care cost analysis of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Comp Eff Res 8:327–336. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0136
doi: 10.2217/cer-2018-0136
pubmed: 30686022
Cotter EJ, Wang J, Illgen RL (2022) (2022) Comparative Cost Analysis of Robotic-Assisted and Jig-Based Manual Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 35(02):176–184. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713895
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1713895
pubmed: 32659815
Doan GW, Courtis RP, Wyss JG et al (2022) Image-free robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves implant alignment accuracy: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 37:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.12.035
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.12.035
pubmed: 34979253
EPRD Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (2021) EPRD Jahresbericht 2021. EPRD gGmbH
Fang CJ, Mazzocco JC, Sun DC, Shaker JM, Talmo CT, Mattingly DA, Smith EL (2022) Total Knee Arthroplasty Hospital Costs by Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Robotic vs Conventional. Arthroplast Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.11.008
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.11.008
pubmed: 34917720
Figueroa F, Wakelin E, Twiggs J, Fritsch B (2019) Comparison between navigated reported position and postoperative computed tomography to evaluate accuracy in a robotic navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26:869–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.004
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.004
pubmed: 31171424
Grau L, Lingamfelter M, Ponzio D et al (2019) Robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty workflow optimization, operative times and learning curve. Arthroplast Today 5:465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.04.007
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.04.007
pubmed: 31886390
pmcid: 6921119
Grimberg A, Jansson V (2020) EPRD-Jahresbericht 2020. EPRD gGmbH
Hampp EL, Sodhi N, Scholl L et al (2019) Less iatrogenic soft-tissue damage utilizing robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach: a blinded assessment. Bone Joint Res 8:495–501. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0129.R1
doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0129.R1
pubmed: 31728189
pmcid: 6825049
Hayashi S, Hashimoto S, Kuroda Y et al (2021) Robotic-arm assisted THA can achieve precise cup positioning in developmental dysplasia of the hip : a case control study. Bone Joint Res 10:629–638. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.1010.BJR-2021-0095.R1
doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.1010.BJR-2021-0095.R1
pubmed: 34592109
pmcid: 8559969
Hepinstall M, Mota F, Naylor B et al (2021) Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in patients who have developmental hip dysplasia. Surg Technol Int 39:338–347
doi: 10.52198/21.STI.39.OS1454
Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C et al (2003) Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total HIP replacement: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007
pubmed: 12925626
Iñiguez M, Negrín R, Duboy J et al (2021) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: increasing surgical accuracy? A cadaveric study. J Knee Surg 34:628–634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698771
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1698771
pubmed: 31639849
Jacofsky DJ, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 31:2353–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026
pubmed: 27325369
Kamath AF, Durbhakula SM, Pickering T et al (2021) Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA. J Robotic Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01315-3
doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01315-3
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5
pubmed: 30225554
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS et al (2021) The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 31:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019889334
doi: 10.1177/1120700019889334
pubmed: 31838874
Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS (2018) Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty 33:2496–2501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042
pubmed: 29699827
Kim K‑I, Kim D‑K, Juh H‑S et al (2016) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty in haemophilic arthropathy. Haemophilia 22:446–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12875
doi: 10.1111/hae.12875
pubmed: 26856395
Kolodychuk N, Su E, Alexiades MM et al (2021) Can robotic technology mitigate the learning curve of total hip arthroplasty? Bone Jt Open 2:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.26.BJO-2021-0042.R1
doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.26.BJO-2021-0042.R1
pubmed: 34128384
pmcid: 8244790
Koulalis D, O’Loughlin PF, Plaskos C et al (2011) Sequential versus automated cutting guides in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee 18:436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.007
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.007
pubmed: 20837395
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K et al (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2606–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6
pubmed: 19360453
pmcid: 2745453
Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN et al (2017) THINK surgical TSolution-One
doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2017052
pubmed: 29087292
pmcid: 5663203
Liow MHL, Chin PL, Tay KJD et al (2014) Early experiences with robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using the DigiMatch
doi: 10.11622/smedj.2014136
pubmed: 25631894
pmcid: 4293963
Liow MHL, Goh GS‑H, Wong MK et al (2017) 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 25:2942–2951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3
doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3
pubmed: 27017214
MacDessi SJ, Wood JA, Diwan AD et al (2021) Surgeon-defined assessment is a poor predictor of knee balance in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, multicenter study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:498–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05925-6
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05925-6
pubmed: 32170358
Mahure SA, Teo GM, Kissin YD et al (2021) Learning curve for active robotic total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06452-8
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06452-8
pubmed: 33611607
Marchand KB, Ehiorobo J, Mathew KK et al (2022) Learning curve of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty for a high-volume surgeon. J Knee Surg 35:409–415. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715126
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1715126
pubmed: 32838457
Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW (2016) Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 31:759–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018
pubmed: 26706836
Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2
pubmed: 19890680
Nherera LM, Verma S, Trueman P, Jennings S (2020) Early economic evaluation demonstrates that noncomputerized tomography robotic-assisted surgery is cost-effective in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at high-volume orthopaedic centres. Adv Orthop 2020:3460675. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3460675
doi: 10.1155/2020/3460675
pubmed: 32351739
pmcid: 7178538
Park SE, Lee CT (2007) Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036
pubmed: 17920481
Parratte S, Price AJ, Jeys LM et al (2019) Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 34:2799–2803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.040
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.040
pubmed: 31301912
Patel K, Judd H, Harm RG et al (2022) Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: is there a maximum level of efficiency for the operating surgeon? J Orthop 31:13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.02.015
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.02.015
pubmed: 35310516
Pierce J, Needham K, Adams C et al (2021) Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: an economic analysis. J Comp Eff Res 10:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2020-0255
doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0255
pubmed: 34581189
Ponzio DY, Lonner JH (2015) Preoperative mapping in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using computed tomography scans is associated with radiation exposure and carries high cost. J Arthroplasty 30:964–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.039
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.039
pubmed: 25840872
Rajan PV, Khlopas A, Klika A et al (2022) The cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model-based evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:168–176. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00309
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00309
pubmed: 35040808
Remily EA, Nabet A, Sax OC et al (2021) Impact of robotic assisted surgery on outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 9:46–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.003
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.003
pubmed: 33997208
pmcid: 8105177
Rossi SMP, Sangaletti R, Perticarini L et al (2022) High accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06800-8
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06800-8
pubmed: 34981162
pmcid: 8723813
Savov P, Tuecking L‑R, Windhagen H et al (2021) Imageless robotic handpiece-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a learning curve analysis of surgical time and alignment accuracy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04036-2
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04036-2
pubmed: 34406509
pmcid: 8595180
Savov P, Tuecking L‑R, Windhagen H et al (2021) Robotics improves alignment accuracy and reduces early revision rates for UKA in the hands of low-volume UKA surgeons. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141:2139–2146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04114-5
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04114-5
pubmed: 34406509
pmcid: 8595180
Scholes C, Sahni V, Lustig S et al (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:660–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2670-1
doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2670-1
pubmed: 24042965
Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C et al (2007) Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures: evaluation of total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 3:301–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.161
doi: 10.1002/rcs.161
Shalhoub S, Lawrence JM, Keggi JM et al (2019) Imageless, robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty combined with a robotic tensioning system can help predict and achieve accurate postoperative ligament balance. Arthroplast Today 5:334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.07.003
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.07.003
pubmed: 31516978
pmcid: 6728592
Siddiqi A, Horan T, Molloy RM et al (2021) A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design. EFORT Open Rev 6:252–269. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200071
doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200071
pubmed: 34040803
pmcid: 8142596
Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF (2002) Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 9:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0160(02)00015-7
doi: 10.1016/s0968-0160(02)00015-7
pubmed: 12126674
Sires JD, Craik JD, Wilson CJ (2021) Accuracy of bone resection in MAKO total knee robotic-assisted surgery. J Knee Surg 34:745–748. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700570
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1700570
pubmed: 31694057
Song E‑K, Seon J‑K, Park S‑J et al (2011) Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9
doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9
pubmed: 21311869
Song E‑K, Seon J‑K, Yim J‑H et al (2013) Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3
doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3
pubmed: 22669549
St Mart J‑P, de Steiger RN, Cuthbert A, Donnelly W (2020) The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Bone Joint J 102:319–328. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0713.R1
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0713.R1
pubmed: 32114810
Steffens D, Karunaratne S, McBride K, Gupta S, Horsley M, Fritsch B (2022) Implementation of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty in the public health system: a comparative cost analysis. International Orthopaedics 46(3):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05203-1
doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05203-1
pubmed: 34549322
Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A et al (2019) 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 cohort-matched study. Surg Technol Int 34:409–413
pubmed: 30742701
Sweet MC, Borrelli GJ, Manawar SS, Miladore N (2021) Comparison of outcomes after robotic-assisted or conventional total hip arthroplasty at a minimum 2‑year follow-up: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00144
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00144
pubmed: 34130305
Thiengwittayaporn S, Uthaitas P, Senwiruch C et al (2021) Imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the radiological alignment with a short learning curve: a randomized controlled trial. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45:2851–2858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05179-y
doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05179-y
Thomas TL, Goh GS, Nguyen MK, Lonner JH (2022) Pin-related complications in computer navigated and robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.012
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.012
pubmed: 35964858
Tompkins GS, Sypher KS, Griffin TM, Duwelius PD (2021) Can a reduction in revision rates make robotic total knee arthroplasty cost neutral with manual total knee arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up? An episode cost analysis. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.030
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.030
pubmed: 34952162
Tuecking L‑R, Savov P, Windhagen H et al (2021) Imageless robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA: surgical technique and case-control study compared with primary robotic TKA. Orthopade 50:1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-021-04182-w
doi: 10.1007/s00132-021-04182-w
pubmed: 34714372
pmcid: 8642254
Vaidya NV, Deshpande AN, Panjwani T et al (2020) Robotic-assisted TKA leads to a better prosthesis alignment and a better joint line restoration as compared to conventional TKA: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06353-2
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06353-2
pubmed: 33165631
Vanlommel L, Neven E, Anderson MB et al (2021) The initial learning curve for the ROSA® Knee System can be achieved in 6–11 cases for operative time and has similar 90-day complication rates with improved implant alignment compared to manual instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop 8:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00438-8
doi: 10.1186/s40634-021-00438-8
pubmed: 34931268
pmcid: 8688637
Yeroushalmi D, Feng J, Nherera L et al (2022) Early economic analysis of robotic-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty may be cost effective in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. J Knee Surg 35:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1712088
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1712088
Yun AG, Qutami M, Chen C‑HM, Pasko KBD (2020) Management of failed UKA to TKA: conventional versus robotic-assisted conversion technique. Knee Surg Relat Res 32:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00056-1
doi: 10.1186/s43019-020-00056-1
pubmed: 32727605
pmcid: 7389376