Abstract
BACKGROUND: In primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is ongoing controversy about optimal fixation (cemented vs cementless). Cemented TKA remains the gold standard, with the largest body of long-term evidence available to support it. However, cementless TKA implants are gaining popularity due to potential biomechanical advantages and a growing body of literature supporting survivorship. Due to paucity of literature investigating fixation methods in robotic-assisted TKA (Ra-TKA), we aim to compare clinical outcomes of cementless Ra-TKA with those of cemented Ra-TKA. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent Ra-TKA by 19 surgeons comparing results of cases using cementless vs cemented fixation. We observed short-term complications, emergency room visits, and readmissions. We collected patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores preoperatively and 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 582 TKA cases were included: 335 cementless and 247 cemented. The patients in the cementless group were younger and had a higher body mass index. The cemented group had a higher rate of return to the operating room, with manipulation under anesthesia for stiffness being the most common indication in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day readmissions, 90-day emergency room visits, or patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective study demonstrated higher return to operating room in the cemented group vs the cementless group. We reported no differences in any other short-term outcomes between the cementless and cemented Ra-TKA. Our data support efficacy and safety of cementless Ra-TKA at 3-month follow-up.