Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug;3(8):589-595.
doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.37.BJO-2022-0076.R1.

Clinical results and patient-reported outcomes following robotic-assisted primary total knee arthroplasty : a multicentre study

Peter Y Joo  1 , Antonia F Chen  2 , Jarod Richards  3 , Tsun Y Law  4 , Kelly Taylor  5 , Kevin Marchand  6 , Gavin Clark  7 , Dermot Collopy  7 , Robert C Marchand  5 , Martin Roche  4 , Michael A Mont  8 , Arthur L Malkani  3
Affiliations

Clinical results and patient-reported outcomes following robotic-assisted primary total knee arthroplasty : a multicentre study

Peter Y Joo et al. Bone Jt Open. 2022 Aug.

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to report patient and clinical outcomes following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) at multiple institutions with a minimum two-year follow-up.

Methods: This was a multicentre registry study from October 2016 to June 2021 that included 861 primary RA-TKA patients who completed at least one pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaire, including Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR), and pain out of 100 points. The mean age was 67 years (35 to 86), 452 were male (53%), mean BMI was 31.5 kg/m2 (19 to 58), and 553 (64%) cemented and 308 (36%) cementless implants.

Results: There were significant improvements in PROMs over time between preoperative, one- to two-year, and > two-year follow-up, with a mean FJS of 17.5 (SD 18.2), 70.2 (SD 27.8), and 76.7 (SD 25.8; p < 0.001); mean KOOS JR of 51.6 (SD 11.5), 85.1 (SD 13.8), and 87.9 (SD 13.0; p < 0.001); and mean pain scores of 65.7 (SD 20.4), 13.0 (SD 19.1), and 11.3 (SD 19.9; p < 0.001), respectively. There were eight superficial infections (0.9%) and four revisions (0.5%).

Conclusion: RA-TKA demonstrated consistent clinical results across multiple institutions with excellent PROMs that continued to improve over time. With the ability to achieve target alignment in the coronal, axial, and sagittal planes and provide intraoperative real-time data to obtain balanced gaps, RA-TKA demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and PROMs in this patient population.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):589-595.

Keywords: Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Joint Replacement; KOOS JR; Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score; Patient reported outcomes; Patient-reported outcome measures; Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Robotics; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement; clinical outcomes; pain scores; patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); primary total knee arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) over time at each follow-up timepoint. Significant improvement was noted after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (p < 0.001).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Percent of patients meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by final follow-up for each patient-reported outcome. FJS, Forgotten Joint Score; KOOS JR, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement; PROMs, patient-reported outcome measures.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) over time at each follow-up timepoint. Significant improvement was noted after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (p < 0.001).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Subjective pain scale over time at each follow-up timepoint. Significant improvement was noted after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (p < 0.001).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(10):2606–2612. 10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):57–63. 10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43. 10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(8):1097–1106. 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kayani B, Haddad FS. Robotic total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and directions for future research. Bone Joint Res. 2019;8(10):438–442. 10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0175 - DOI - PMC - PubMed