Cemented vs Cementless Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Yield Similar Short-Term Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND

In primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is ongoing controversy about optimal fixation (cemented vs cementless). Cemented TKA remains the gold standard, with the largest body of long-term evidence available to support it. However, cementless TKA implants are gaining popularity due to potential biomechanical advantages and a growing body of literature supporting survivorship. Due to paucity of literature investigating fixation methods in robotic-assisted TKA (Ra-TKA), we aim to compare clinical outcomes of cementless Ra-TKA with those of cemented Ra-TKA.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent Ra-TKA by 19 surgeons comparing results of cases using cementless vs cemented fixation. We observed short-term complications, emergency room visits, and readmissions. We collected patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores preoperatively and 12 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 582 TKA cases were included: 335 cementless and 247 cemented. The patients in the cementless group were younger and had a higher body mass index. The cemented group had a higher rate of return to the operating room, with manipulation under anesthesia for stiffness being the most common indication in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day readmissions, 90-day emergency room visits, or patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective study demonstrated higher return to operating room in the cemented group vs the cementless group. We reported no differences in any other short-term outcomes between the cementless and cemented Ra-TKA. Our data support efficacy and safety of cementless Ra-TKA at 3-month follow-up.