Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30219968›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2019

The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sascha Karunaratne, Michael Duan, Evangelos Pappas, Brett Fritsch, Richard Boyle, Sanjeev Gupta, Paul Stalley, Mark Horsley, Daniel Steffens

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sascha KarunaratneSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. Sascha.Karunaratne@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7518-0307
Michael DuanFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Evangelos PappasFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Brett FritschDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard BoyleDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sanjeev GuptaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Paul StalleyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mark HorsleyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Daniel SteffensSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of semi-active and active robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on post-operative patient-reported outcomes of function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery.

methodsPubMed, Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched. Included were comparative studies investigating the effectiveness of semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty compared to any other surgical intervention on function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. Risk of bias and the strength of the evidence were assessed using the Downs and Black tool and the GRADE system, respectively. Relative risks, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models.

resultsFourteen studies involving 1342 patients were included. All studies compared robotic to conventional surgery, with active robotic surgery evaluated in total hip or knee arthroplasty and semi-active robotic surgery in total hip or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Most studies presented some risk of bias, and the strength of evidence was rated as low to very low quality. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that post-operative functional outcomes were comparable between active robotic and conventional total hip and knee arthroplasty at the short-, medium- and long-term follow-up. No significant difference in pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery were reported in individual studies.

conclusionsThis systematic and meta-analyses indicates that functional outcomes for patients undergoing active robotic total hip and knee arthroplasty were comparable to conventional surgery. Whether semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty is effective in improving post-operative pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery is unclear. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017059932.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative PainQuality of LifeArthroplastyHipKneePatient-reported outcomesRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30219968
OpenAlexW2890304836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.