Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30456542›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019

Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Kyu-Jin Cho, Jong-Keun Seon, Won-Young Jang, Chun-Gon Park, Eun-Kyoo Song

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Robotic arm-assisted arthroplasty: The latest developments.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2022
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyu-Jin ChoCenter for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea.
Jong-Keun SeonCenter for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea.
Won-Young JangCenter for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea.
Chun-Gon ParkCenter for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea.
Eun-Kyoo SongCenter for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160, Ilsim-Ri, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Jeonnam, 519-809, South Korea. eksong@chonnam.ac.kr.
Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was (1) to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotic and conventional total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of ten years, (2) to evaluate the survival rate, (3) and to estimate the accuracy of the two techniques by analyzing the outliers of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.

methodsWe evaluated 351 patients (390 knees), 155 patients undergoing robotic TKA, and 196 patients treated with conventional TKA with a mean follow-up of 11.0 years. HSS, KSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 questionnaires were used for clinical evaluation. Mechanical alignment, implant radiological measurements, and outliers were analyzed for radiological results. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for survival rate.

resultsAll clinical assessments showed excellent improvements in both groups (all p < 0.05), without any significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The conventional TKA group showed a significantly higher number of outliers compared with the robotic TKA group (0 < 0.05). The cumulative survival rate was 98.8% in the robotic TKA group and 98.5% in the conventional TKA group with excellent survival (p = 0.563).

conclusionOur study showed excellent survival with both robotic and conventional TKA and similar clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. And, in terms of radiological outcome, robotic TKA showed better accuracy and consistency with fewer outliers compared with conventional TKA. With longer follow-up and larger cohort, the accuracy and effectiveness of robotic TKA on implant survival rate can be elucidated in the future.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateKnee JointRadiographyTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeConventionalLong-term resultRoboticTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30456542
OpenAlexW2901412984

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.