Image-free handheld robotic-assisted technology improved the accuracy of implant positioning compared to conventional instrumentation in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty, without additional benefits in improvement of clinical outcomes.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SB-TKA) using either robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) or conventional TKA (C-TKA).

Methods: Included were the patients who underwent SB-TKA between January 2018 and January 2020 and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Of 151 patients included, 117 patients were operated using an image-free handheld robotic sculpting system (RA-TKA group) and 34 patients operated using conventional instrumentation (C-TKA group). The key outcomes noted were multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs), adverse events, and radiological outcomes. Two investigators independently measured the radiological outcomes on pre- and post-operative radiographs in coronal plane (medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and anatomic lateral distal femoral angle [aLDFA]) and sagittal plane (posterior tibial slope [PTS] and posterior condylar offset [PCO]). The chi-square test was used to examine categorical variables. Student's t test was used to analyze the continuous variables.

Results: Patients in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (gender, body mass index, incidence of comorbidities, and length of hospital stay) except that RA-TKA group patients younger (66.7 ± 8.9 vs 70.4 ± 10.5, P = 0.037) than C-TKA group. The operative time was longer in RA-TKA group as compared to C-TKA (189.3 ± 37.1 vs 175.0 ± 28.2, P = 0.040). The final PROs at each were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). The values of PROs at final follow-up in RA-TKA compared to C-TKA were VAS pain (0.4 ± 0.9 vs 0.4 ± 0.5), KOOS-JR (89.3 ± 5.8 vs 87.1 ± 5.3), and physical (55.9 ± 2.8 vs 55.4 ± 3.2), mental (61.1 ± 4.4 vs 60.2 ± 4.7) component of VR-12 scores, and KSS satisfaction (37.5 ± 1.1 vs 37.1 ± 2.2) (all P > 0.50 or non-significant [n.s.]). While one patient in RA-TKA required revision of femoral component for peri-prosthetic fracture, none of the patient in conventional group were revised (0.85% vs 0%, P = n.s.). The proportion of patients with outliers in RA-TKA group was lower for aLDFA (2.6% vs 22.1%, P < 0.01) and PTS (0% vs 35%, P < 0.01).

Conclusion: This comparative study in patients undergoing SB-TKA found reduction of outliers in femoral and tibial implant positioning with RA-TKA as compared to C-TKA. There were no differences in both groups for pain, function, and satisfaction at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Level Of Evidence: III Therapeutic Study.