The evolution of robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty, each system must be assessed for its own value: a systematic review of clinical evidence and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Robotic systems have been introduced to improve the precision of total knee arthroplasty. However, different robotic systems are available, each with unique features used to plan and execute the surgery. As such, due to this diversity, the clinical evaluation of each robotic platform should be separated.

METHODS

An extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science was conducted with subsequent meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included regarding robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Evaluated outcomes included clinical results, surgical precision, ligament balance, surgical time, learning curve, complications and revision rates. These were split up based on the robot-specific brand: ROBODOC (T-SOLUTION ONE), OMNIBOT, MAKO, NAVIO (CORI) and ROSA.

RESULTS

With a follow-up of more than 10 years, no improved clinical outcomes have been noted with the ROBODOC system compared to the conventional technique. If available, other platforms only present short-term clinical outcomes. Radiological outcomes are published for most robotic setups, demonstrating improved surgical precision compared to the conventional technique. Gap balance assessment is performed differently between all systems, leading to heterogeneous outcomes regarding its relationship on clinical outcomes. There is a similar learning curve based on operative time for all robotic platforms. In most studies, robot assistance requires longer operative time compared to the conventional technique. Complications and revision rates are published for ROBODOC and MAKO, without clear differences to conventional total knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this systematic review is that the current evidence regarding each robotic system is diverse in quantity and quality. Each system has its own specificities and must be assessed for its own value. Regarding scientific literature, the generic term of robotic should be banned from the general conclusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review level IV.