Early Clinical Benefits of Robot-Assisted vs Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty (RATKA-EARLY)
NCT ID: NCT07078149
Last Updated: 2025-07-22
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
68 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2022-03-28
2024-12-16
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
A total of 68 adult patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis scheduled for TKA were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 34 patients underwent robot-assisted TKA (RATKA), and 34 underwent conventional manual TKA (mTKA). All surgeries were performed by the same experienced surgical team, using the same type of implant.
Researchers assessed intraoperative and perioperative variables (such as surgical duration and blood loss), and evaluated early clinical outcomes at 3 months postoperatively by comparing pain levels, implant alignment, knee function, mobility, and overall patient satisfaction with baseline values.
The study was conducted at Hospital Universitario Santa Cristina in Madrid, Spain. It was approved by the local ethics committee and carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and international research guidelines.
By comparing these two surgical approaches, the study aims to help patients and healthcare professionals make informed decisions regarding total knee replacement options.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT07212296
Early Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of a Novel Robotic TKA System
NCT06638047
Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty(TKA)
NCT03659318
Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Cruciate-Retaining Versus Bi-Cruciate Stabilized
NCT06838663
Total Knee Arthroplasty Robot Assisted With MAKO™ Robotic System Compared to the Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty by Mechanical Ancillary
NCT03566875
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Inclusion criteria comprised symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with surgical indication for TKA and a correctable varus or valgus deformity of less than 18 degrees. Exclusion criteria included prior surgery on the index knee; prior arthroplasty in the same limb; neurological disorders affecting knee function; tumor involvement; ipsilateral hip pathology limiting range of motion (ROM); active periarticular infection; body mass index (BMI) \> 35; dependency or institutionalization (e.g., nursing home residents); and severe anatomical deformity, instability, or malalignment requiring alternative surgical strategies.
Surgical procedures (RATKA using the ROSA® Knee System and mTKA) were performed as previously described in the literature. All surgeries were carried out by the same senior surgeon, who had previously completed the ROSA learning curve. A medial parapatellar approach and standard surgical exposure were used in all cases. The same posterior-stabilized implant design (Persona® PS; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) was implanted with patellar resurfacing and cement fixation (PALACOS® R+G, Heraeus). A tourniquet was placed but not inflated; no limb ischemia was induced. Tranexamic acid was administered intravenously unless contraindicated. Preoperative planning was based on full-length standing radiographs of the lower limbs (Tele-rx), and full-scale anteroposterior and lateral knee radiographs (AP/L-rx). Femoral and tibial osteotomies were calculated from mechanical axis measurements, and implant sizes were selected using AP/L-rx data. In the RATKA group, intraoperative registration was performed manually after arthrotomy, without the use of preoperative 3D imaging, in compliance with the Spanish Data Protection Act (Organic Law 3/2018). The ROSA® Knee System (software version 1.2; Zimmer Biomet) was used according to manufacturer guidelines.
The following data were collected. Baseline: demographic and clinical data (comorbidities, BMI, osteoarthritis severity using the Kellgren-Lawrence classification); hemoglobin and hematocrit values; radiographic studies (Tele-rx of the limb and AP/L knee views); and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Intraoperatively: operative time and intraoperative complications. Postoperative Day 3: hemoglobin and hematocrit values; radiographic studies (Tele-rx and AP/L views); functional recovery measured by range of motion (flexion and extension in degrees) using a goniometer; and mechanical limb alignment assessed on digital Tele-rx. Three months postoperatively: PROMs (VAS, KOOS, and SF-36); range of motion; radiographic studies (Tele-rx and AP/L views); and mechanical limb alignment measured again on digital Tele-rx.
Descriptive statistics were reported as frequencies for categorical variables and as means with standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables. Between-group comparisons were conducted using Student's t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables, and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Pre- and postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests within groups, and unpaired t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests between groups. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to analyze VAS, KOOS, and SF-36 outcomes at 3 months. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, BMI, and discharge values. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 15 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), with p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (Registry No. 4748; approval date: March 24, 2022). All procedures complied with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision) and applicable Spanish regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Manual TKA (mTKA)
mTKA was performed using the conventional manual surgical technique, without robotic or navigation assistance. All bone cuts and implant positioning were carried out manually by the surgeon, based on preoperative planning and intraoperative anatomical landmarks. This approach represents the standard total knee arthroplasty technique widely used in routine clinical practice.
Conventional manual TKA (mTKA)
mTKA was performed without robot assistance.
Robot-assisted TKA (RATKA)
RATKA was performed using the ROSA® Knee System, a robotic-assisted surgical platform approved for total knee arthroplasty. The procedure was carried out by the surgeon with continuous manual control, while the robotic system provided intraoperative assistance to enhance the precision and reproducibility of bone resections and implant positioning.
Robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA).
RATKA was performed using the ROSA® Knee System.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA).
RATKA was performed using the ROSA® Knee System.
Conventional manual TKA (mTKA)
mTKA was performed without robot assistance.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Correctable varus or valgus deformity of less than 18 degrees
Exclusion Criteria
* Prior arthroplasty in the same limb
* Neurological disorders affecting knee function
* Tumor involvement of the knee
* Ipsilateral hip pathology limiting range of motion (ROM)
* Active periarticular infection
* Body mass index (BMI) \> 35
* Dependency or institutionalization (e.g., nursing home residents)
* Severe anatomical deformity, instability, or malalignment requiring alternative surgical strategies
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hospital Universitario Santa Cristina
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Inmaculada Neira
Orthopaedic surgeon
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Inmaculada Neira, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Hospital Universitario Santa Cristina
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hospital Universitario Santa Cristina
Madrid, , Spain
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SantaCristinaH
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.