Authors
Airapetov G.A.1, 3, Daniliyants A.A.1, 3, Zagorodniy N.V.1, 2, Suleymanyants D.K.1, Yatsukova V.E.4, Ahmat А.А.1, Al Kafavin A.Kh.A.1, Samkovich D.A.1, 3
1 Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow
2 National Medical Research Center for Traumatology and Orthopedics named after N.N. Priorov, Moscow
3 City Clinical Hospital №31 named after Academician G.M. Savelyeva of the Moscow City Healthcare Department, Moscow
4 South Ural State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Chelyabinsk
Abstract
Introduction. Knee arthroplasty is the method of choice in the treatment of late stages of gonarthrosis. A new stage in the development of technologies in orthopedics is associated with the introduction of robotic systems into the practice of orthopedic surgeons.
The aim of the study: to evaluate the learning curve and compare early outcomes of knee replacement using the CORI robotic system with manual joint replacement.
Materials and methods. The prospective study involved 30 patients (11 men, 19 women), who were randomized into two groups using a random number generator: Group 1 (n = 15), patients underwent robotic knee arthroplasty using the CORI system from Smith&nephew; Group 2 (n = 15), patients underwent manual knee arthroplasty. Evaluation of the functional state of the knee joint in the postoperative period was also carried out using the KSS questionnaire.
Results. Analysis of the learning curve of a surgeon with experience in using other robotic systems showed that starting from the 3rd case, the duration of the operation began to decrease and reached a plateau from the 6th case of using the CORI robotic system. In group №1, the duration of the operation was statistically significantly longer compared to group №2. The volume of intraoperative blood loss was comparable in both groups. The KSS values were statistically significantly higher in group №1.
Discussion. The authors suggest that the main reason for the higher KSS scores in group №1 is the minimal soft tissue release, which in this study was achieved using the functional alignment approach.
Conclusion. The data obtained during the study indicate that the existing experience in using robotic systems contributes to a faster mastery of the robot-assisted CORI system. In our opinion, a surgeon with experience in working with a robotic system can overcome the learning curve and reach a plateau already at the 6th case of knee arthroplasty. Moreover, the duration of the operation using the robotic system after overcoming the learning curve was longer, compared to the manual technique.
Keywords: robotic knee arthroplasty, functional alignment, gonarthrosis.
References
1. Marsh M., Newman S. Trends and developments in hip and knee arthroplasty technology. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2021; 8: 2055668320952043-2055668320952043. doi: 10.1177/2055668320952043.
2. Zampogna B, Campi S, Torre G, et al. Outcomes of Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Conventional TKA: A Bicentric Controlled Retrospective Clinical Study. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(15): 3352. doi: 10.3390/jcm10153352.
3. Rudran B, Magill H, Ponugoti N, et al. Functional outcomes in patient specific instrumentation vs. conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty; a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1): 702. doi: 10.1186/ s12891-022-05620-2.
4. Siddiqi A, Horan T, Molloy RM, et al. A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design. EFORT Open Rev. 2021; 6(4): 252-269. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200071.
5. Balaguer-Castro M, Torner P, Jornet-Gibert M, et al. Current situation of robotics in knee prosthetic surgery: A technology that has come to stay? Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2023; 67(4): 334-341. doi: 10.1016/ j.recot.2022.10.011.
6. Huang P, Cross M, Gupta A, et al. Are all robotic technologies created equal? Comparing one of the latest image-free robotic technologies to all other robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1): 647. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05150-8.
7. Han S, Rodriguez-Quintana D, Freedhand AM, et al. Contemporary Robotic Systems in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Review of Accuracy and Outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2021; 52(2): 83-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2020.12.001.
8. Weiner TR, Ferreri ED, Sarpong NO, et al. Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty is Associated with Earlier Return of Postoperative Range of Motion. Surg Technol Int. 2023; 43: 197-201. doi: 10.52198/23.sti.43.os1724.
9. Airapetov G.A., Yablonskiy P.K., Serdobintsev M.S., et al. Robot-assisted knee arthroplasty: first experience (a prospective randomized study). Genij Ortopedii. 2023;29(5): 475-480. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2023-29-5-475-480.
10. Howell SM, Howell SJ, Kuznik KT, et al. Does a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty restore function without failure regardless of alignment category? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(3): 1000-1007. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2613-z.
11. Rivière C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E, et al. Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 103(7): 1047-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010.
12. Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, et al. A prospective double-blinded randomised control trial comparing robotic arm-assisted functionally aligned total knee arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty. Trials. 2020; 21(1): 194. doi: 10.1186/ s13063-020-4123-8.
13. Nogalo C, Meena A, Abermann E, Fink C. Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023; 31(3): 736-750. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07031-1.
14. Ali M, Phillips D, Kamson A, et al. Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty for Non-Fellowship-Trained Orthopedic Surgeons. Arthroplast Today. 2022; 13: 194-198. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.10.020.
15. Bosco F, Rovere G, Burgio C, et al. Accuracy and learning curve of imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2025; 66: 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.12.029.
16. Dhungana H, Jangid S, Goyal M. Alignment Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Where do We Stand Today? Chin Med Sci J. 2024; 39(3): 217-225. doi: 10.24920/004372.
17. Stegelmann SD, Butler J, Eaddy SG, Davis T, Davis K, Miller R. Learning curve for imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty in non-fellowship trained joint replacement surgeons. J Orthop. 2023; 45: 72-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.10.006.
18. Schopper C, Proier P, Luger M, Gotterbarm T, Klasan A. The learning curve in robotic assisted knee arthroplasty is flattened by the presence of a surgeon experienced with robotic assisted surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023; 31(3): 760-767. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07048-6.
19. MacDessi SJ, Griffiths-Jones W, Harris IA, et al. Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification. Bone Joint J. 2021; 103-B(2): 329-337. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.103b2.bjj-2020-1050.r1.
20. Shatrov J, Battelier C, Sappey-Marinier E, et al. Functional Alignment Philosophy in Total Knee Arthroplasty - rationale and technique for the varus morphotype using a CT based robotic platform and individualized planning. SICOT J. 2022; 8: 11. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2022010.
21. Shatrov J, Foissey C, Kafelov M, et al. Functional Alignment Philosophy in Total Knee Arthroplasty-rationale and technique for the valgus morphotype using an image based robotic platform and individualized planning. J Pers Med. 2023; 13(2): 212. doi: 10.3390/jpm13020212.
