No Benefit of Robotic-Assisted over Computer-Assisted Surgery for Achieving Neutral Coronal Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming increasingly popular due to better precision, potentially superior outcomes and the ability to achieve alternative alignment strategies. The most commonly used alignment strategy with RAS is a modification of mechanical alignment (MA), labeled adjusted MA (aMA). This strategy allows slight joint line obliquity of the tibial component to achieve superior balancing. In the present study, we compared coronal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with MA that has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CASs and 72 RASs, we observed no difference in postoperative measurements (median 90 degrees for all, LDFA p = 0.676, MPTA p = 0.947) and no difference in outliers <2 degrees (LDFA p = 0.540, MPTA p = 0.250). The present study demonstrates no benefit in eliminating outliers or achieving neutral alignment of both the femoral and the tibial components in robotic-assisted versus computer-assisted TKA if MA is the target. To utilize the precision of RAS, it is recommended to aim for more personalized alignment strategies. The level of evidence is level III retrospective study.

Increased Femoral Component Flexion and No Difference in Slope in Robotic- versus Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty When Targeting Mechanical Alignment.

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming popular due to better precision, when compared with other instrumentation. Although RAS has been validated in comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS), data from clinical settings comparing these two techniques are lacking. This is especially the case for sagittal alignment. Whereas pure mechanical alignment (MA) aims for 0 to 3 degrees of flexion of the femoral component and 3° of posterior slope for the tibial component, adjusted MA (aMA) mostly used with RAS allows for flexing of the femoral component for downsizing and increase of slope for an increase of the flexion gap. In the present study, we compared sagittal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and CAS targeting MA, which has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Femoral component flexion and tibial slope were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CAS and 72 RAS, we found no difference in tibial slope (p = 0.661), 1° median femoral component flexion (p = 0.023), and no difference in outliers (femur, p = 0.276, tibia, p = 0.289). RAS slightly increases femoral component flexion, but has no influence on tibial slope, when compared with CAS in TKA. If MA is the target, RAS provides no benefit over CAS for achieving the targeted sagittal alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective study.