Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31464939›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Robotic arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of the effects on clinical outcomes.

Fengjun Zhang, Hongcai Li, Zhaochen Ba, Chunguang Bo, Kai Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Trends and developments in hip and knee arthroplasty technology.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
    Review
  18. The acceptance of robots in the orthopedic joint replacement operating room.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
    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

5 authors.

Fengjun ZhangDepartment of Spine and Joint Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhanhua District.
Hongcai LiDepartment of Medicine, Binzhou Polytechnic College, Binzhou, Shandong, China.
Zhaochen BaDepartment of Spine and Joint Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhanhua District.
Chunguang BoDepartment of Medicine, Binzhou Polytechnic College, Binzhou, Shandong, China.
Kai LiDepartment of Spine and Joint Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhanhua District.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been recommended for treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. However, its effectiveness and safeness remain controversial compared with conventional UKA. Therefore, the goal of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to re-evaluate the effects of robotic arm-assisted UKA on clinical functional outcomes.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen the relevant studies. Continuous data (surgical time, knee excursion during weight acceptance, American knee society score [AKSS], Oxford knee score [OKS], forgotten joint score [FJS], visual analog scale [VAS], and range of motion [ROM]) were pooled using a standardized mean difference (SMD) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the effect size, while dichotomous data (complication rate, revision rate) were pooled to obtain the relative risk (RR) with a 95% CI by STATA 13.0 software.

resultsEleven studies involving 498 patients undergoing robotic-assisted UKA and 589 patients receiving conventional UKA were included. Our pooled results demonstrated that robotic-assisted could significantly reduce the complication rate (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85; P = .0041) and improve the knee excursion during weight acceptance (SMD: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.25-1.00; P = .001), but prolonged the surgical time (SMD: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40-1.08; P < .001). No significant difference in the revision rate, AKSS, OKS, FJS, VAS, and ROM between robotic-assisted and conventional UKA groups.

conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates robotic-assisted UKA may be an effective and safe surgical procedure for treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularReoperationRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID31464939
PMCPMC6736485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.