Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31754468›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2019

The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty.

Babar Kayani, Sujith Konan, Atif Ayuob, Salamah Ayyad, Fares S Haddad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Radiographic evaluation of robot-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Trial
  4. Computer-Assisted Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Babar KayaniUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
Sujith KonanUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
Atif AyuobUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
Salamah AyyadUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
Fares S HaddadUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves accuracy in achieving the planned acetabular cup positioning compared to conventional manual THA.Robotic THA improves precision and reduces outliers in restoring the planned centre of hip rotation compared to conventional manual THA.Improved accuracy in restoring hip biomechanics and acetabular cup positioning in robotic THA have not translated to any differences in early functional outcomes, correction of leg-length discrepancy, or postoperative complications compared to conventional manual THA.Limitations of robotic THA include substantive installation costs, additional radiation exposure, steep learning curves for gaining surgical proficiency, and compatibility of the robotic technology with a limited number of implant designs.Further higher quality studies are required to compare differences in conventional versus robotic THA in relation to long-term functional outcomes, implant survivorship, time to revision surgery, and cost-effectiveness. Cite this article:

Indexed as

functional outcomeship biomechanicsimplant positioningroboticstotal hip arthroplasty/replacement

Identifiers

PMID31754468
PMCPMC6851528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.