Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2796-7827
Original Article

Does Use of Technology Affect Manipulation Under Anesthesia Rates in Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors

  • Theodor Di Pauli von Treuheim

    1   Department of Orthopedics, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York, United States

  • Filippo Romanelli

    1   Department of Orthopedics, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York, United States

  • Muhammad Haider

    2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, United States

  • Jonathan Katzman

    1   Department of Orthopedics, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York, United States

  • Matthew S. Hepinstall

    2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, United States

  • Ran Schwarzkopf

    2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, United States

  • Joshua Rozell 

    2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, United States
Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Arthrofibrosis can be a major source of dissatisfaction for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) may be offered to improve motion in selected cases. Advancements in computer-navigated and robotic-assisted technology have been championed to improve component positioning with fewer soft tissue releases. We sought to investigate whether these technologies impact MUA rates. An institutional retrospective review was conducted on 18,815 patients who underwent a primary, elective, unilateral TKA between January 2010 and December 2022. Patients were stratified into conventional (n = 12,659), computer-navigated (n = 4,071), or robotic-assisted TKA (n = 2,085) cohorts. Patient demographics and implant data, including mode of fixation and level of constraint (cruciate-retaining [CR] vs. posterior-stabilized) were collected. MUA rates were the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc testing and multivariate logistic regression analysis. We report a 1.7% overall MUA rate, with a rate of 1.6% for conventional and 1.5% for navigated TKA, which were significantly lower than robotic-assisted TKA at 3.2% (p < 0.001). However, on multivariate analysis, there was no difference in MUA rates for navigated and robotic-assisted when compared with conventional techniques. Cementless and hybrid fixation and CR implant designs were higher with robotic-assisted compared with conventional and navigated TKA. Multivariate regression revealed that TKA with fully cementless (odds ratio [OR]: 1.80 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16–2.78]; p = 0.008) or hybrid fixation (OR: 2.92 [95% CI: 1.77–4.81]; p < 0.001) increased the risk for future MUA. Constraint also significantly influenced MUA rates, with CR designs yielding higher MUA rates (OR: 1.51 [95% CI: 1.16–1.96]; p = 0.002). When controlling for confounding factors, navigated and robotic-assisted TKA generated comparable odds for MUA when compared with conventional techniques. However, robotic-assisted TKA were more likely to utilize cementless or hybrid fixation and CR implant constraint, each of which were independently associated with increased odds of MUA. These operative factors should be considered when risk-stratifying and counseling patients on the likelihood of MUA.

Level of Evidence III.

Keywords

manipulation under anesthesia - robotic total knee arthroplasty - total knee arthroplasty - arthrofibrosis


Publication History

Received: 17 November 2024

Accepted: 24 January 2026

Accepted Manuscript online:
28 January 2026

Article published online:
18 February 2026

© 2026. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 DeFrance MJ, Scuderi GR. Are 20% of patients actually dissatisfied following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (03) 594-599
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV. et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 116-119
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Schairer WW, Vail TP, Bozic KJ. What are the rates and causes of hospital readmission after total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 181-187
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kornuijt A, Das D, Sijbesma T, de Vries L, van der Weegen W. Manipulation under anesthesia following total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of literature. Musculoskelet Surg 2018; 102 (03) 223-230
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (09) 2663-2668
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Olsen AA, Nin DZ, Chen YW. et al. The cost of stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (04) 638-643
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Insall J, Scott WN, Ranawat CS. The total condylar knee prosthesis. A report of two hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61 (02) 173-180
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hyodo K, Masuda T, Aizawa J, Jinno T, Morita S. Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics during activities of daily living: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther 2017; 21 (03) 159-166
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 McClelland JA, Feller JA, Menz HB, Webster KE. Patients with total knee arthroplasty do not use all of their available range of knee flexion during functional activities. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 2017; 43: 74-78
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rullán PJ, Zhou G, Emara AK, Klika AK, Koroukian S, Piuzzi NS. Understanding rates, risk factors, and complications associated with manipulation under anesthesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA): an analysis of 100,613 TKAs. Knee 2022; 38: 170-177
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Zaffagnini S, Di Paolo S, Meena A. et al. Causes of stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop 2021; 45 (08) 1983-1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Siddiqi A, Horan T, Molloy RM, Bloomfield MR, Patel PD, Piuzzi NS. A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design. EFORT Open Rev 2021; 6 (04) 252-269
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ofa SA, Ross BJ, Flick TR, Patel AH, Sherman WF. Robotic total knee arthroplasty vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: a nationwide database study. Arthroplast Today 2020; 6 (04) 1001-1008.e3
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 2002; 9 (03) 173-180
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (01) 24-33
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Werner BC, Carr JB, Wiggins JC, Gwathmey FW, Browne JA. Manipulation under anesthesia after total knee arthroplasty is associated with an increased incidence of subsequent revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 72-75
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brigati DP, Huddleston J, Lewallen D. et al. Manipulation under anesthesia after total knee: who still requires a revision arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S348-S351
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Abram SGF, Yusuf B, Alvand A, Sabah SA, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Manipulation under anesthetic after primary knee arthroplasty is associated with a higher rate of subsequent revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (09) 2640-2645.e2
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Mancino F, Rossi SMP, Sangaletti R, Lucenti L, Terragnoli F, Benazzo F. A new robotically assisted technique can improve outcomes of total knee arthroplasty comparing to an imageless navigation system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2023; 143 (05) 2701-2711
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Malkani AL, Roche MW, Kolisek FR. et al. Manipulation under anesthesia rates in technology-assisted versus conventional-instrumentation total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 336-340
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. 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 2018; 33 (08) 2496-2501
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Hampp EL, Sodhi N, Scholl L. et al. Less iatrogenic soft-tissue damage utilizing robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach: a blinded assessment. Bone Joint Res 2019; 8 (10) 495-501
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Abdel MP, Morrey ME, Barlow JD. et al. Myofibroblast cells are preferentially expressed early in a rabbit model of joint contracture. J Orthop Res 2012; 30 (05) 713-719
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Yoo JH, Oh JC, Oh HC, Park SH. Manipulation under anesthesia for stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015; 27 (04) 233-239
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Sierra RJ, Berry DJ. Surgical technique differences between posterior-substituting and cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (7, Suppl): 20-23
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Tille E, Beyer F, Lützner C, Postler A, Lützner J. Better flexion but unaffected satisfaction after treatment with posterior stabilized versus cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty - 2-year results of a prospective, randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (02) 368-373
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Edgar M, Harvey J, Jiang S. et al. Cemented total knee arthroplasty provides greater knee range of motion at 2 years than cementless technique. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2023; 33 (08) 3561-3568
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Boyle KK, Nodzo SR, Ferraro JT, Augenblick DJ, Pavlesen S, Phillips MJ. Uncemented vs cemented cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty in patients with body mass index greater than 30. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1082-1088
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Mercurio M, Gasparini G, Sanzo V, Familiari F, Castioni D, Galasso O. Cemented total knee arthroplasty shows less blood loss but a higher rate of aseptic loosening compared with cementless fixation: an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (09) 1879-1887.e4
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Liu Y, Zeng Y, Wu Y, Li M, Xie H, Shen B. A comprehensive comparison between cementless and cemented fixation in the total knee arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16 (01) 176
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Rand JA. Cement or cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 52-62
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Prudhon JL, Verdier R. Cemented or cementless total knee arthroplasty? Comparative results of 200 cases at a minimum follow-up of 11 years. SICOT J 2017; 3: 70
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Karachalios T, Komnos G, Amprazis V, Antoniou I, Athanaselis S. A 9-year outcome study comparing cancellous titanium-coated cementless to cemented tibial components of a single knee arthroplasty design. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (12) 3672-3677
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Fricka KB, Sritulanondha S, McAsey CJ. To cement or not? two-year results of a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented vs. cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA). J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 55-58
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Dodd CA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA. Total knee arthroplasty fixation. Comparison of the early results of paired cemented versus uncemented porous coated anatomic knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (260) 66-70
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Pap K, Vasarhelyi G, Gal T. et al. Evaluation of clinical outcomes of cemented vs uncemented knee prostheses covered with titanium plasma spray and hydroxyapatite: a minimum two years follow-up. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2018; 29 (02) 65-70
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Dubin JA, Westrich GH. A matched cohort study between cementless TKA and cemented TKA shows a reduction in tourniquet time and manipulation rate. J Orthop 2020; 21: 532-536
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Knapp P, Weishuhn L, Pizzimenti N, Markel DC. Risk factors for manipulation under anaesthesia after total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (6_Supple_A, Supple_A): 66-72
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Martinez-Carranza N, Pettas A, Razzaz D, Broström E, Hedström M. Younger age is associated with increased odds of manipulation under anesthesia for joint stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (06) 1067-1071
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Itou J, Kuwashima U, Itoh M, Okazaki K. Anterior prominence of the femoral condyle varies among prosthesis designs and surgical techniques in total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 (01) 784
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 42 Pfefferle KJ, Shemory ST, Dilisio MF, Fening SD, Gradisar IM. Risk factors for manipulation after total knee arthroplasty: a pooled electronic health record database study. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (10) 2036-2038
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 Velez Edwards DR, Tsosie KS, Williams SM, Edwards TL, Russell SB. Admixture mapping identifies a locus at 15q21.2-22.3 associated with keloid formation in African Americans. Hum Genet 2014; 133 (12) 1513-1523
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 44 Flick TR, Wang CX, Patel AH, Hodo TW, Sherman WF, Sanchez FL. Arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty: patients with keloids at risk. J Orthop Traumatol 2021; 22 (01) 1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 45 Fisher DA, Dierckman B, Watts MR, Davis K. Looks good but feels bad: factors that contribute to poor results after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (6, Suppl 2): 39-42
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 46 Newman ET, Herschmiller TA, Attarian DE, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP, Wellman SS. Risk factors, outcomes, and timing of manipulation under anesthesia after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 245-249
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 47 Kirchner GJ, Stambough JB, Jimenez E, Nikkel LE. Robotic-assisted TKA is not associated with decreased odds of early revision: an analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2024; 482 (02) 303-310
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 48 Wang F, Li H, Mu Q. et al. Association of acute postoperative pain and cigarette smoking with cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin and substance P. Front Mol Neurosci 2022; 14: 755799
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 49 Kim HJ, Liu X, Wang H. et al. Glutathione prevents inhibition of fibroblast-mediated collagen gel contraction by cigarette smoke. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2002; 283 (02) L409-L417
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 50 Romero A, Cáceres M, Arancibia R. et al. Cigarette smoke condensate inhibits collagen gel contraction and prostaglandin E2 production in human gingival fibroblasts. J Periodontal Res 2015; 50 (03) 371-379
    Search in Google Scholar