Patient Preferences for Tracker Pin–Related Incision Configurations in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
- 1Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
- 2Corresponding author. Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.Tel.: +6 674 451 601.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) requires tracker pin placement, which may result in different incision configurations. Although clinical outcomes across pin placement strategies appear comparable, patient preferences regarding incision design remain unclear. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 101 patients with knee osteoarthritis who were recruited consecutively at a tertiary university hospital. Three tracker pin–related incision configurations were presented using standardized lower-limb models: (A) all-inside, consisting of the longest single midline incision; (B) femoral pin in–tibial pin out, consisting of a medium-length midline incision plus two tibial stab incisions; and (C) pin outside, consisting of the shortest midline incision plus four stab incisions. Participants rated each design using a 5-point Likert scale and selected a single preferred option. Cosmetic and recovery concerns were assessed using five Likert-scale items. Results: Postoperative scarring received the highest concern ratings, followed by recovery time, whereas concern about incision length and the number of incisions was lower. Preference scores showed a numerical ranking: all-inside 4.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.0–4.0]; femoral pin in–tibial pin out 3.0 [IQR, 2.0–4.0]; and pin outside 3.0 [IQR, 2.0–3.0], without a statistically significant difference (Friedman χ² = 5.52, P = .063). When selecting a single preferred option, 46.5% chose all-inside, 25.7% femoral pin in–tibial pin out, and 27.7% pin outside. Conclusions: No clear differences in overall preference were observed among the three incision configurations. Preoperative counseling should address expectations regarding scar appearance, wound care, and recovery trajectory rather than emphasizing incision configuration alone in robotic-assisted TKA.
Related
- Can randomized trials realistically detect patient benefit from robotic-assisted reverse shoulder arthroplasty?
- Same patient, same total knee arthroplasty, different outcomes ? A pilot study comparing conventional vs. OMNIBotics Robotic-Assisted HLS Kneetec TM (Corin ® )
- Patient preferences for antihypertensive medication dispensing trade-offs in cardiovascular disease prevention: national survey in Australia
- Image-based robotic-assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: Short-term survivorship, clinical and radiographic outcomes
- Substantial improvement in short-term survivorship in patients receiving robotic arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : a retrospective cohort study
BibTeX
@article{varahyuenyongviwat2026patient,
title = {{Patient Preferences for Tracker Pin–Related Incision Configurations in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty}},
author = {Varah Yuenyongviwat, MD and Chirathit Anusitviwat, MD and Theerawit Hongnaparak, MD and Pakjai Tuntarattanapong, MD and Khanin Iamthanaporn, MD},
journal = {Arthroplasty Today},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.artd.2026.102141},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2026.102141},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Patient Preferences for Tracker Pin–Related Incision Configurations in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
AU - Varah Yuenyongviwat, MD
AU - Chirathit Anusitviwat, MD
AU - Theerawit Hongnaparak, MD
AU - Pakjai Tuntarattanapong, MD
AU - Khanin Iamthanaporn, MD
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Arthroplasty Today
DO - 10.1016/j.artd.2026.102141
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2026.102141
AB - Background: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) requires tracker pin placement, which may result in different incision configurations. Although clinical outcomes across pin placement strategies appear comparable, patient preferences regarding incision design remain unclear. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 101 patients with knee osteoarthritis who were recruited consecutively at a tertiary university hospital. Three tracker pin–related incision configurations were presented using standardized lower-limb models: (A) all-inside, consisting of the longest single midline incision; (B) femoral pin in–tibial pin out, consisting of a medium-length midline incision plus two tibial stab incisions; and (C) pin outside, consisting of the shortest midline incision plus four stab incisions. Participants rated each design using a 5-point Likert scale and selected a single preferred option. Cosmetic and recovery concerns were assessed using five Likert-scale items. Results: Postoperative scarring received the highest concern ratings, followed by recovery time, whereas concern about incision length and the number of incisions was lower. Preference scores showed a numerical ranking: all-inside 4.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.0–4.0]; femoral pin in–tibial pin out 3.0 [IQR, 2.0–4.0]; and pin outside 3.0 [IQR, 2.0–3.0], without a statistically significant difference (Friedman χ² = 5.52, P = .063). When selecting a single preferred option, 46.5% chose all-inside, 25.7% femoral pin in–tibial pin out, and 27.7% pin outside. Conclusions: No clear differences in overall preference were observed among the three incision configurations. Preoperative counseling should address expectations regarding scar appearance, wound care, and recovery trajectory rather than emphasizing incision configuration alone in robotic-assisted TKA.
SN - 2352-3441
ER -