Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025
The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
High in-vivo accuracy of a novel robotic-arm-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty
Faseeh Zaidi1,2, Craig M Goplen3,4, Connor Fitz-Gerald3
1Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Purpose:
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been shown to improve the accuracy and precision of bony resections and implant position. However, the in vivo accuracy of the full surgical workflow has not been widely reported. The primary objective of this study is to determine the accuracy and precision of a robotic-arm-assisted system throughout the intraoperative workflow.
Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent primary TKA with various workflows and alignment targets by three arthroplasty-trained surgeons with previous experience using the ROSA® Knee System (Zimmer Biomet) over a 3-month follow-up period. Accuracy and precision were determined by measuring the difference between various workflow time points, including the final preoperative plan (PP), robot-validated (RV) resection angle and postoperative radiographs (PR). The absolute mean difference between the measurements determined accuracy, and the standard deviation represented precision. The lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle, femoral flexion angle and tibial slope were measured on postoperative coronal long-leg radiographs and true short-leg lateral radiographs.
Results:
A total of 77 patients were included in the final analyses. The accuracy for the coronal femoral angle was 1.62 ± 1.11°, 0.75 ± 0.79° and 1.96 ± 1.29° for the differences between PP and PR, PP and RV and RV and PR. The tibial coronal accuracy was 1.44 ± 1.03°, 0.81 ± 0.67° and 1.57 ± 1.14° for PP/PR, PP/RV and RV/PR, respectively. Femoral flexion accuracy was 1.39 ± 1.05°, 0.83 ± 0.59° and 1.81 ± 1.21° for PP/PR, PP/RV and RV/PR, respectively. Tibial slope accuracy was 0.99 ± 0.72°, 1.19 ± 0.87° and 1.63 ± 1.11°, respectively. The proportion of patients within 3° was 93.2%, 95.3%, 97.3% and 94.6% for the distal femur, proximal tibia, femoral flexion and tibial slope angles when the final intraoperative plan was compared to PRs. No patients had a postoperative complication at the final follow-up.
Conclusions:
The ROSA Knee System has acceptable accuracy and precision of coronal and sagittal plane resections with few outliers at various steps throughout the platform's entire workflow in vivo.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III.
