Computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty. Navigation and active robotic systems: an evidence-based analysis

The Medical Advisory Secretariat undertook a review of the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer assisted hip and knee arthroplasty. The two computer assisted arthroplasty systems that are the topics of this review are (1) navigation and (2) robotic-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.

Computer-assisted arthroplasty consists of navigation and robotic systems. Surgical navigation is a visualization system that provides positional information about surgical tools or implants relative to a target bone on a computer display. Most of the navigation-assisted arthroplasty devices that are the subject of this review are licensed by Health Canada. Robotic systems are active robots that mill bone according to information from a computer-assisted navigation system. The robotic-assisted arthroplasty devices that are the subject of this review are not currently licensed by Health Canada.

The Cochrane and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment databases did not identify any health technology assessments on navigation or robotic-assisted hip or knee arthroplasty. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 1996 and November 30, 2003. This search produced 367 studies, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria.

NAVIGATION-ASSISTED ARTHROPLASTY: Five studies were identified that examined navigation-assisted arthroplasty.A Level 1 evidence study from Germany found a statistically significant difference in alignment and angular deviation between navigation-assisted and free-hand total knee arthroplasty in favour of navigation-assisted surgery. However, the endpoints in this study were short-term. To date, the long-term effects (need for revision, implant longevity, pain, functional performance) are unknown.(1)A Level 2 evidence short-term study found that navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty was significantly better than a non-navigated procedure for one of five postoperative measured angles.(2)A Level 2 evidence short-term study found no statistically significant difference in the variation of the abduction angle between navigation-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty.(3)Level 3 evidence observational studies of navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have been conducted. Two studies reported that "the follow-up of the navigated prostheses is currently too short to know if clinical outcome or survival rates are improved. Longer follow-up is required to determine the respective advantages and disadvantages of both techniques."(4;5) ROBOTIC-ASSISTED ARTHROPLASTY: Four studies were identified that examined robotic-assisted arthroplasty.A Level 1 evidence study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between functional hip scores at 24 months post implantation between patients who underwent robotic-assisted primary hip arthroplasty and those that were treated with manual implantation.(6)Robotic-assisted arthroplasty had advantages in terms of preoperative planning and the accuracy of the intraoperative procedure.(6)Patients who underwent robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty had a higher dislocation rate and more revisions.(6)Robotic-assisted arthroplasty may prove effective with certain prostheses (e.g., anatomic) because their use may result in less muscle detachment.(6)An observational study (Level 3 evidence) found that the incidence of severe embolic events during hip relocation was lower with robotic arthroplasty than with manual surgery.(7)An observational study (Level 3 evidence) found that there was no significant difference in gait analyses of patients who underwent robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty using robotic surgery compared to patients who were treated with conventional cementless total hip arthroplasty.(8)An observational study (Level 3 evidence) compared outcomes of total knee arthroplasty between patients undergoing robotic surgery and patients who were historical controls. Brief, qualitative results suggested that there was much broader variation of angles after manual total knee arthroplasty compared to the robotic technique and that there was no difference in knee functional scores or implant position at the 3 and 6 month follow-up.(9).