Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful and highly effective procedure in most patients with tricompartmental knee arthritis. Despite the innovations in surgical techniques due to planning software and technological innovations, patients’ dissatisfaction after TKA is still high, at up to 20%. Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) could be considered as a future option for improving outcomes due to its higher accuracy, precision, and reliability. Robotic systems can be classified as fully active, semi-active, or passive depending on the surgeon’s involvement during the procedure, and as imageless or image-based according to the necessity of radiological exams for the pre-operative planning. Three of the most well-known robotic systems for knee surgery are MAKO^® (Stryker Ltd., Kalamazoo, MI, USA), NAVIO^® (Smith & Nephew, Andover, TX, USA), and ROSA^® (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA). These systems show differences in terms of surgeon involvement, the use of CT scans or X-rays for pre-operative planning, the possibility to perform both unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and TKA (or even total hip arthroplasty THA), and in the different kinds of knee prosthesis that can be implanted. This article aims to describe the features of the most used robotic systems for knee arthroplasty, to examine their outcomes and analyze their cost-effectiveness, and to evaluate future perspectives.

Background: The aim of this study is to find a correlation between linear measurements and the graft length required for different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision techniques, to extract formulas to predict required graft length during the preoperative planning. Methods: At time 0 and 30 days later, two observers measured eight linear distances on standard 2D knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nine curved distances on 3D MRI sequences, corresponding to different techniques for ACL revision, anatomic anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, and lateral extrarticular tenodesis (LET). Intra- and interobserver reliability was tested for 2D and 3D measurements. The correlation between 2D and 3D measurements was tested. The 2D measurements with highest repeatability and reproducibility, and with strongest correlation with 3D measurements were used to extract formulas to calculate the graft length from 2D values. Results: Fifty MRIs acquired with both 2D and 3D sequences were used. The intra- and interobserver reliability of linear 2D measurement was high, with the transepicondylar distance (TD) showing the highest reproducibility and repeatability. The intra- and interobserver reliability of 3D measurements was lower than 2D, but acceptable for all measurements except for ALL reconstruction. The TD showed the strongest correlation with 3D measurements. The formulas extracted to calculate the graft length from the TD proved to be accurate. Conclusion: Accurate formulas were created to calculate the graft length needed for different ACL revision techniques and ALL reconstruction/LET techniques from TD. These formulas can be used during preoperative planning of ACL revision cases.