Table 3 Studies Comparing Radiographic Outliers in RATKA Versus Conventional TKA
From: Computer and robotic – assisted total knee arthroplasty: a review of outcomes
Percentage of Radiographic Outliers | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Year | Robot | Number | C-Mechanical %a | C-Femur | C-Tibia | S-Femur | S-Tibia |
Yang [53] | 2017 | ROBODOC Vs Next Gen | 113 | R - 8.7 | R - 5.8 | R - 1.5 | R – 14. | R – 8.7 |
C - 33 | C - 31 | C - 10.3 | C - 59 | C - 41 | ||||
Kim [54] | 2019 | ROBODOC Vs Duracon | 1348 | R - 14 | R - 11 | R – 11 | R - 12 | R - 11 |
C - 26 | C - 21 | C – 20 | C − 21 | C - 20 | ||||
Jeon [55] | 2019 | ROBODOC NextGen (Robotic) | 163 | R – 10.7 | R - 8.3 | R − 11.9 | R – 3.6 | R - 20.2 |
Triathalon (conventional) | C - 16.5 | C – 11.4 | C - 11.4 | C − 6.3 | C − 15.2 | |||
Cho [56] | 2018 | ROBODOC | 390 | R – 10.6 | R - 8 | R – 7.1 | R – 35.9 | R – 5.3 |
C - 26.4 | C - 15 | C – 7.9 | C – 32.9 | C – 32.1 | ||||
Song [57] | 2013 | ROBODOC vs NextGen | 100 | R – 0 | R – 0 | R − 0 | R – 0 | R – 2 |
C − 24 | C - 4 | C – 6 | C- 0 | C - 6 | ||||
Song [58] | 2011 | ROBODOC vs NextGen | 60 | R – 0 | R – 0 | R – 0 | R – 0 | R – 6.7 |
C – 23.3 | C – 26.7 | C – 0 | C - 10 | C - 50 | ||||
Siebert [10] | 2002 | CASPAR Vs NextGen | 120 | R- 98 | – | – | – | – |
C − 65 | ||||||||