Aims. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. Methods. The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Results. Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m. 2. (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). Conclusion. This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):374–384

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303.

Aims. This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis. Results. A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume. Conclusion. MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):541–548

Aims

The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results. There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion. The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020

The application of robotics in the operating theatre for knee arthroplasty remains controversial. As with all new technology, the introduction of new systems might be associated with a learning curve. However, guidelines on how to assess the introduction of robotics in the operating theatre are lacking. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence on the learning curve of robot-assisted knee arthroplasty. An extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. Randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included. Outcomes assessed included: time required for surgery, stress levels of the surgical team, complications in regard to surgical experience level or time needed for surgery, size prediction of preoperative templating, and alignment according to the number of knee arthroplasties performed. A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of medium to low quality. The operating time of robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a learning curve of between six to 20 cases and six to 36 cases respectively. Surgical team stress levels show a learning curve of seven cases in TKA and six cases for UKA. Experience with the robotic systems did not influence implant positioning, preoperative planning, and postoperative complications. Robot-assisted TKA and UKA is associated with a learning curve regarding operating time and surgical team stress levels. Future evaluation of robotics in the operating theatre should include detailed measurement of the various aspects of the total operating time, including total robotic time and time needed for preoperative planning. The prior experience of the surgical team should also be evaluated and reported. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):407–413

Aims

Computer-based applications are increasingly being used by orthopaedic surgeons in their clinical practice. With the integration of technology in surgery, augmented reality (AR) may become an important tool for surgeons in the future. By superimposing a digital image on a user’s view of the physical world, this technology shows great promise in orthopaedics. The aim of this review is to investigate the current and potential uses of AR in orthopaedics.