Dataset Information

Robotic- and orthosensor-assisted versus manual (ROAM) total knee replacement: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Robotic-arm-assisted knee arthroplasty allows for more accurate component positioning and alignment and is associated with better patient-reported outcomes compared to manually performed jig-based knee arthroplasty. However, what is not known is whether the addition of an intra-articular sensor (Verasense^TM) to aid intraoperative balancing of the total knee replacement (TKR) offers improved functional outcomes for the patient. The purpose of this research is to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing a conventional manual knee replacement to those undergoing TKR using robotic-assisted surgery and the Verasense^TM to optimise alignment and balance the knee joint, respectively, and assess the associated cost economics of such technology.

Methods and analysis

This randomised controlled trial will include 90 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing primary TKR. Patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria that consent to be in the study will be randomised at a ratio of 1:1 to either manual TKR (standard of care) or robotic-arm-assisted TKR with Verasense^TM to aid balancing of the knee. The primary objective will be functional improvement at 6 months following surgery between the two groups. The secondary objectives are to compare changes in knee-specific function, joint awareness, patient expectation and fulfilment, satisfaction, pain, stiffness and functional ability, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and gait patterns between the two groups. Ethical approval was obtained by the Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by the Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Discussion

This study will assess whether the improved accuracy of component positioning using the robotic-arm-assisted surgery and the Verasense^TM to aid balancing of the TKR offers improved outcome relative to standard manual jig-based systems that are currently the standard of care. This will be assessed primarily according to knee-specific function, but several other measures will also be assessed including whether these are cost-effective interventions.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN47889316 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN47889316 . Registered on 25 November 2019 DATE AND VERSION FOR PROTOCOL: ROAM Protocol V1.0 (13-12-2018).

SUBMITTER: Clement ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mechanical alignment (MA) aims to achieve neutral limb alignment in all patients, whereas TKA with functional alignment (FA) aims to restore native, patient-specific anatomy and knee kinematics by manipulating bone resections and fine-tuning implant positioning. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal alignment technique in TKA by comparing patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness in MA TKA versus FA TKA. Robotic technology will be used to execute the planned implant positioning and limb alignment with high-levels of accuracy in all study patients.Methods and analysisThis prospective double-blinded randomised control trial will include 100 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary robotic arm-assisted TKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to MA TKA (the control group) or FA TKA (the investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Blinded observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment, gait, implant stability, cost-effectiveness, and complications. A superiority study design will be used to evaluate whether FA TKA provides superior outcomes compared to MA TKA. Primary and secondary objectives will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent t test, paired t test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.DiscussionThis is the first study to describe the use of robotic technology to achieve FA TKA, and the only existing clinical trial comparing robotic MA TKA versus robotic FA TKA. The findings of this study will enable an improved understanding of the optimal alignment technique in TKA for achieving high-levels of patient satisfaction, improving functional outcomes, increasing implant survivorship, improving cost-effectiveness, and reducing complications.RegistrationClinical Trials.gov, NCT04092153. Registered on 17 September 2019.

Project description:BackgroundThere remains a paucity of clinical studies assessing how any differences in accuracy of implant positioning between robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RO UKA) and conventional jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (CO UKA) translate to patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, and implant survivorship. The objectives of this study are to compare accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications in CO UKA versus RO UKA. Computer navigation will be used to assess intraoperative knee kinematics in all patients undergoing CO UKA.Methods and analysisThis prospective randomised controlled trial will include 140 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee arthritis undergoing primary UKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to CO UKA (control group) or RO UKA (investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. The primary objective of this study is to compare accuracy of implant positioning in CO UKA versus RO UKA. The secondary objectives are to compare the following outcomes between the two treatment groups: limb alignment, surgical efficiency, postoperative functional rehabilitation, functional outcomes, quality of life, range of motion, resource use, cost effectivness, and complications. Observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes pertaining to these objectives. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.DiscussionThis study compares a comprehensive and robust range of clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes in CO UKA versus RO UKA. The findings of this study will provide an improved understanding of the differences in CO UKA versus RO UKA with respect to accuracy of implant positioning, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04095637 . Registered on 19 September 2019.

Project description:BackgroundRobotic-arm assisted surgery aims to reduce manual errors and improve the accuracy of implant positioning during total hip arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of implant positioning, restoration of hip biomechanics, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications in conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (CO THA) versus robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (RO THA). Preoperative pelvic computerised tomography (CT) scans will be used to create patient-specific, virtual, three-dimensional reconstructions for surgical planning in both treatment groups.Methods and analysisThis prospective randomised controlled trial will include 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing primary THA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to CO THA (control group) or RO THA (investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to the accuracy of implant positioning, hip biomechanics, postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and complications. Primary and secondary objectives will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. Intention to treat relates to the allocated treatment (CO THA or RO THA), and per-protocol refers to the actual treatment received by the patient. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent t test, paired t test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.DiscussionThis study compares a comprehensive and robust range of clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes in CT-planned CO THA versus CT-planned RO THA. The findings of this study will enable an improved understanding of the differences in CO THA versus RO THA with respect to patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04095845 . Registered on 19 September 2019.

Project description:Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely recognized as an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Compared with conventional TKA, robotic-arm assisted TKA may improve patients’ functionality and resulting quality of life by more accurate and precise component placement. Currently, the literature on cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA in the US is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA relative to TKA in the Medicare-aged population including exploring the impact of hospital volume on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the costs, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of robotic-arm assisted TKA vs TKA in Medicare population with OA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We sourced costs from the literature including episode-of-care (EOC) costs from a Medicare study. We assessed cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA by hospital procedure volume and conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results For the average patient treated in a hospital with an annual volume of 50 procedures, robotic-arm assisted TKA resulted in a total QALY of 6.18 relative to 6.17 under conventional TKA. Total discounted costs per patient were $32,535 and $31,917 for robotic-arm assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective in the base case with an ICER of $41,331/QALY. In univariate DSA, cost-effectiveness outcomes were most sensitive to the annual hospital procedure volume. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a WTP of $50,000/QALY only when hospital volume exceeded 49 procedures per year. In PSA, robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY WTP threshold in 50.4% of 10,000 simulations. Conclusions Despite high robotic purchase costs, robotic-arm assisted TKA is likely to be cost-effective relative to TKA in the Medicare population with knee OA in high-volume hospitals through lowering revision rates and decreasing post-acute care costs. Higher-volume hospitals may deliver higher value in performing in robotic-arm assisted TKA.

Project description:Introduction:The aim of this work is to compare in a retrospective study, the radiological results of three series of different total knee replacements performed using Orthopilot computer-based alignment system (Group A, 31 patients), a totally intramedullary alignment system (Group B, 34 patients) and a totally extramedullary alignment system (Group C, 32 patients). Materials and methods:At a medium follow-up of 15 years, all patients underwent call interview for clinical update. Of the 115 patients initially enrolled in the study, only 97 were available for radiological assessment. Both standing long-leg antero-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee had been taken for every patient at 1 year-follow-up and at the last follow-up. Results:At the last follow-up, the mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was 179.1° (range: 176°-184°) for group A, 178.6° (range: 173°-186°) for group B and 177.8° (range: 172°-186°) for group C with no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. The mean frontal femoral component angle (FFC) was 90.5° (range: 87°-94°) for group A, 91.05° (range: 85°-95°) for group B and 91.19° (range: 85°-96°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean frontal tibial component angle (FTC) was 89.9° (range: 83°-97°) for group A, 90.6° (range: 87°-95°) for group B and 90.8° (range: 86°-95°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean tibial component inclination in the sagittal plane was 1° (range: 3°-0°) for group A, 3.6° (range: 7°-0°) for group B and 3.1° (range: 6°-0°) for group C. Discussion and conclusion:Our results demonstrated statistically significant differences between computer-assisted and extramedullary group, in favour of navigated group in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. Computer-assisted group showed superior but not statistically significant differences compared to intramedullary alignment system in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. We advocate the use of computer-assisted system routinely in total knee replacement. As an alternative, we suggest the use of intramedullary system.