
RACER Knee: Does Robotic Knee Replacement Actually Improve Outcomes? | Andy Metcalfe & Ed Davis
The RACER Knee Trial is one of the most important randomized evaluations of robotic-assisted total knee replacement to date. The headline finding is provocative: robotic-assisted surgery was more precise, but patients did not report better outcomes at 12 months compared with conventional total knee replacement. But does that mean robots do not work? In this episode, I’m joined by RACER Knee investigators Professor Andy Metcalfe and Professor Ed Davis for an in-depth discussion of what the trial actually tells us. We examine the Forgotten Joint Score, statistical power, surgeon experience, alignment philosophy, MCL releases, patellar resurfacing, cemented versus cementless fixation, costs, study funding, and the difference between achieving greater precision and knowing exactly where that precision should take us. We also discuss one of the trial’s most fascinating observations: patients who believed they received robotic surgery had substantially higher Forgotten Joint Scores than those who believed they underwent conventional surgery, highlighting the importance of blinding and patient perception in surgical trials. Finally, Andy and Ed explain what they would change if RACER were designed today and preview what is coming next, including health economic analysis, learning-curve research, alignment analyses, and longer-term 2-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up. RACER may not be the end of the robotics debate. It may be the beginning of a much more interesting question: We have the ability to perform knee replacement with extraordinary precision. Now, do we know where we should put the knee?