ReviewDer Orthopade2018
[Robotics-mechanical bridge between imaging and patient].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Three-dimensional individual joint reconstruction through the Mako robotic arm-assisted surgical technique : Possibilities and limitations of the surgical technique].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Automated measurement of alpha angle on 3D-magnetic resonance imaging in femoroacetabular impingement hips: a pilot study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- [New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro].Der Orthopade · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are still a high number of dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients. This situation has not changed much for decades, despite many innovations focusing on implant longevity and higher procedural precision. In this context, there is a growing discussion on possible systematic errors made in knee arthroplasty, especially regarding the alignment philosophy of the implants.
objectiveIt was reported that a more anatomical alignment might result in improved patient outcome. However, current technologies have severe limitations to achieving optimized and individual alignment. In this context, the aim of this manuscript was to assess whether image-based robot-guided knee arthroplasty might represent an opportunity for achieving individualized alignment.
methodsThe literature on this subject was evaluated and analyzed. Furthermore, research projects and expert recommendations were discussed.
resultsThe precision of preoperative planning is higher with robotic techniques than with other computer-assisted or manual technologies. In addition, the individual soft tissue situation of the patient is taken into account and the prosthesis position is optimized. This ensures optimum soft tissue balancing and stability of the prosthesis.
conclusionModern robot-assisted systems are the mechanical bridge between imaging and patient. This technique provides objective control over the results produced with alternative alignments. This applies to both the prosthesis position itself and the resulting soft tissue balancing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30062450What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.