Meeting News

Robotic-arm assisted TKA may offer benefit vs non-robotic assistance

PHOENIX — Use of a robotic arm during total knee arthroplasty indicated a small improvement compared to TKA performed with non-robotic arm assistance, however data showed no statistically significant differences, according to results of a study with 2-year minimum follow-up presented at the Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting.

Laura Scholl

Laura Scholl, MS, presented the findings of Kenneth A. Gustke, MD, of Florida Orthopaedic Institute, who used forgotten joint scores (FJS), Knee Society Function Scores (KS–FS) and Knee Society Knee Scores (KS-KS) to compare a consecutive series of the two TKA procedures.

Gustke reviewed 82 robotic-arm assisted TKAs (RAA-TKA) and 76 non-robotic-arm assisted TKAs (NRAA-TKA) he performed.

“Both groups had the same total knee implant. It was a Triathlon [Stryker], and there were no differences in baseline characteristics with respect to age, gender and preoperative deformity,” Scholl, who is a Stryker employee, said.

According to the study abstract, Gustke found knees were more often balanced in RAA-TKA testing vs. NRAA-TKA testing, 45% vs. 24%, respectively, and the FJS in the RAA-TKA group was 73 vs. 63 in the NRAA-TKA group.

An improvement was also seen in the RAA-TKA group in KS-KS and KS-FS, which changed preoperatively to postoperatively from 41 to 100 and from 50 to 100, respectively. While these statistical results showed a slight median improvement in the RAA-TKA group compared to the NRAA-TKA group, the difference was not statistically significant.

Gustke ultimately determined results were better with RAA-TKA based on the FJS results, according to Scholl.

“He also looked at it from the perspective of how many percentages of patients had over an 80 [FJS] because that has been represented as an excellent clinical outcome. And again, [Gustke] found that for his robotic group it was 42% vs. 31%,” Scholl said.

Although the numbers may not have shown any notable difference, Scholl said Gustke’s patients who underwent TKA with robotic-arm assistance experienced a slight improvement.

“[Gustke] did not see a [statistically] significant difference; however, it was a minimum clinically important difference between the robotic and the manual groups,” Scholl said. – by Max Wursta

 

Reference:

Gustke K, et al. Paper 521. Presented at: Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; Feb. 8-11, 2020; Phoenix.

 

Disclosure: Scholl reports she is an employee of and has stock or stock options with Stryker.

PHOENIX — Use of a robotic arm during total knee arthroplasty indicated a small improvement compared to TKA performed with non-robotic arm assistance, however data showed no statistically significant differences, according to results of a study with 2-year minimum follow-up presented at the Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting.

Laura Scholl

Laura Scholl, MS, presented the findings of Kenneth A. Gustke, MD, of Florida Orthopaedic Institute, who used forgotten joint scores (FJS), Knee Society Function Scores (KS–FS) and Knee Society Knee Scores (KS-KS) to compare a consecutive series of the two TKA procedures.

Gustke reviewed 82 robotic-arm assisted TKAs (RAA-TKA) and 76 non-robotic-arm assisted TKAs (NRAA-TKA) he performed.

“Both groups had the same total knee implant. It was a Triathlon [Stryker], and there were no differences in baseline characteristics with respect to age, gender and preoperative deformity,” Scholl, who is a Stryker employee, said.

According to the study abstract, Gustke found knees were more often balanced in RAA-TKA testing vs. NRAA-TKA testing, 45% vs. 24%, respectively, and the FJS in the RAA-TKA group was 73 vs. 63 in the NRAA-TKA group.

An improvement was also seen in the RAA-TKA group in KS-KS and KS-FS, which changed preoperatively to postoperatively from 41 to 100 and from 50 to 100, respectively. While these statistical results showed a slight median improvement in the RAA-TKA group compared to the NRAA-TKA group, the difference was not statistically significant.

Gustke ultimately determined results were better with RAA-TKA based on the FJS results, according to Scholl.

“He also looked at it from the perspective of how many percentages of patients had over an 80 [FJS] because that has been represented as an excellent clinical outcome. And again, [Gustke] found that for his robotic group it was 42% vs. 31%,” Scholl said.

Although the numbers may not have shown any notable difference, Scholl said Gustke’s patients who underwent TKA with robotic-arm assistance experienced a slight improvement.

“[Gustke] did not see a [statistically] significant difference; however, it was a minimum clinically important difference between the robotic and the manual groups,” Scholl said. – by Max Wursta

 

Reference:

Gustke K, et al. Paper 521. Presented at: Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; Feb. 8-11, 2020; Phoenix.

 

Disclosure: Scholl reports she is an employee of and has stock or stock options with Stryker.

    See more from Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting