PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2017; 30(09): 849-853
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1607450
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Patient Satisfaction Outcomes after Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Short-Term Evaluation

Robert C. Marchand
1   Ortho Rhode Island, Wakefield, Rhode Island
,
Nipun Sodhi
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Anton Khlopas
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Assem A. Sultan
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Steven F. Harwin
3   Arthroplasty Service, Mount Sinai West Hospital, New York
,
Arthur L. Malkani
4   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, KentuckyOne Health, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Michael A. Mont
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

30. August 2017

02. Oktober 2017

Publikationsdatum:
13. Oktober 2017 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) presents a potential, new added value for orthopedic surgeons. In today's health care system, a major determinant of value can be assessed by patient satisfaction scores. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to analyze patient satisfaction outcomes between RATKA and manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Specifically, we used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) to compare (1) pain scores, (2) physical function scores, and (3) total patient satisfaction outcomes in manual and RATKA patients at 6 months postoperatively. In this study, 28 cemented RATKAs performed by a single orthopedic surgeon at a high-volume institution were analyzed. The first 7 days were considered as an adjustment period along the learning curve. Twenty consecutive cemented RATKAs were matched and compared with 20 consecutive cemented manual TKAs performed immediately. Patients were administered a WOMAC satisfaction survey at 6 months postoperatively. Satisfaction scores between the two cohorts were compared and the data were analyzed using Student's t-tests. A p-value < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. The mean pain score, standard deviation (SD), and range for the manual and robotic cohorts were 5 ± 3 (range: 0–10) and 3 ± 3 (range: 0–8, p < 0.05), respectively. The mean physical function score, SD, and range for the manual and robotic cohorts were 9 ± 5 (range: 0–17) and 4 ± 5 (range, 0–14, p = 0.055), respectively. The mean total patient satisfaction score, SD, and range for the manual and robotic cohorts were 14 points (range: 0–27 points, SD: ± 8) and 7 ± 8 points (range: 0–22 points, p < 0.05), respectively. The results from this study further highlight the potential of this new surgical tool to improve short-term pain, physical function, and total satisfaction scores. Therefore, it appears that patients who undergo RATKA can expect better short-term outcomes when compared with patients who undergo manual TKA.

Keywords

orthopedic - TKA - RATKA - score - outcome
 

  • References

  • 1 Zelhart M, Kaiser AM. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice. Surg Endosc 2017;
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Matthews CA. New developments in robotics and single-site gynecologic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 60 (02) 296-311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Miller BA, Salehi A, Limbrick Jr DD, Smyth MD. Applications of a robotic stereotactic arm for pediatric epilepsy and neurooncology surgery. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2017; 20 (04) 364-370
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Hampp EL. , et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 441-446
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Illgen RNd, Bukowski BR, Abiola R. , et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 365-372
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen II RL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2016; XXIX: 303-308
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Elmallah RK, Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Padden DA, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Robotic-arm assisted surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 283-288
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 van der List JP, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle AD. Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (11) 3482-3495
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Urish KL, Conditt M, Roche M, Rubash HE. Robotic total knee arthroplasty: surgical assistant for a customized normal kinematic knee. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (05) e822-e827
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Pierce TP, Mont MA. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015; 12 (06) 727-735
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schiraldi M, Bonzanini G, Chirillo D, de Tullio V. Mechanical and kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (07) 130
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Mechanical, anatomical, and kinematic axis in TKA: concepts and practical applications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014; 7 (02) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB. , et al. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428) 26-34
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sikorski JM. Alignment in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (09) 1121-1127
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Patel NK, Kim E, Khlopas A. , et al. What influences how patients rate their hospital stay after total hip arthroplasty?. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 405-410
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Chughtai M, Patel NK, Gwam CU. , et al. Do Press Ganey scores correlate with total knee arthroplasty-specific outcome questionnaires in postsurgical patients?. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (9S): S109-S112
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Mistry JB, Chughtai M, Elmallah RK. , et al. What influences how patients rate their hospital after total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (11) 2422-2425
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Delanois RE, Gwam C, Mistry JB. , et al. Does length of stay influence how patients rate their hospitalization after total hip arthroplasty?. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 393-398
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Chughtai M, Jauregui JJ, Mistry JB. , et al. What influences how patients rate their hospital after total knee arthroplasty?. Surg Technol Int 2016; 28: 261-265
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gwam C, Mistry JB, Piuzzi N. , et al. What influences how patients with depression rate hospital stay after total joint arthroplasty?. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 373-378
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Delanois RE, Gwam CU, Mistry JB. , et al. Does gender influence how patients rate their patient experience after total hip arthroplasty?. Hip Int 2017;
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Jauregui JJ, Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RD, Mont MA. Rating systems to assess the outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 289-294
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Pierce TP, Elmallah RD, Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Mont MA. Standardized questionnaire time burden for practitioners and patients. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 302-306
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Chughtai M, Khlopas A, Thomas M. , et al. Development of an encompassing questionnaire for evaluating the outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 306-313
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Chughtai M, Khlopas A, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Elmallah RK, Mont MA. Time Burden of Standardized Hip Questionnaires. Surg Technol Int 2016; 28: 280-284
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Liow MH, Goh GS, Wong MK, Chin PL, Tay DK, Yeo SJ. 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 2016;
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kim KI, Kim DK, Juh HS, Khurana S, Rhyu KH. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty in haemophilic arthropathy. Haemophilia 2016; 22 (03) 446-452
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 118-126
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Song EK, Seon JK, Park SJ, Jung WB, Park HW, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (07) 1069-1076
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. , et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Conditt M, Coon T, Roche M. , et al. Two year survivorship of robotically guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 294-294
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar