• James Randolph Onggo, Jason Derry Onggo, Richard De Steiger, and Raphael Hau.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Box Hill Hospital, 8 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Melbourne, VIC, 3128, Australia. jamesonggo1993@hotmail.com.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Oct 1; 140 (10): 1533-1549.

BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful procedure in managing end-stage arthritis when non-operative treatments fail. New technologies such as robotic TKA (rTKA) have been developed to improve the accuracy of prosthesis implantation. While short-term cohort studies on rTKA have shown excellent results, the evidence comparing between rTKA and conventional TKA (cTKA) is not yet well established. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of rTKA versus cTKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiographic results, complications, peri-operative parameters and costs.MethodsA multi-database search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Data from studies comparing between rTKA and cTKA were extracted and analyzed.ResultsEighteen studies were included in this review, consisting of 2234 rTKA and 4300 cTKA. Robotic TKA led to a more precise prosthesis implantation with significantly fewer outliers in the mechanical axis (p < 0.001), femoral coronal (p = 0.002) and tibial sagittal (p = 0.01) alignments. Only the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) (p < 0.001) score at final follow-up was significantly better in rTKA than cTKA. rTKA also had a lower mean blood loss (p < 0.001) despite a longer mean operation time (p = 0.006). There were no statistically significant difference in terms of other clinical outcome measures, range of motion and complications.ConclusionBoth rTKA and cTKA are reliable and safe to perform. However, rTKA is capable of achieving superior alignment in several axes, lower mean blood loss and this may lead to marginally better clinical outcomes than cTKA.Evidence LevelLevel II, Meta-analysis of non-homogeneous studies.

15 keywords...

hide…