Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32367430›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2020

Robots in the Operating Room During Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Paul L Sousa, Peter K Sculco, David J Mayman, Seth A Jerabek, Michael P Ast, Brian P Chalmers

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

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

6 authors.

Paul L SousaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Peter K SculcoAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
David J MaymanAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Seth A JerabekAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Michael P AstAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Brian P ChalmersAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. chalmersb@hss.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of the reviewThe utilization of technology has increased over the last decade across all surgical specialties. Robotic-assisted surgery, among the most advanced surgical technology, applied to hip and knee arthroplasty has experienced rapid growth in utilization, surgical applications, and robotic platforms. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the most commonly utilized robotic platforms for hip and knee arthroplasty and the most up to date literature on the benefits and limitations of robotic arthroplasty. RECENT

findingsStudies consistently demonstrate that that robotic-assisted surgery during total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) improves component position and alignment. There is also growing evidence that robotic-assisted UKA improves clinical outcomes and implant survivorship and, therefore, may be cost-effective. However, there remains to be convincing evidence that robotic-assisted arthroplasty improves clinical outcome measures or reduces revision rates for THA and TKA. Potential disadvantages of robotic arthroplasty remain, including a learning curve, potential for additional radiation exposure preoperatively, and the financial costs. Robotic hip and knee arthroplasty remains attactive as studies show that it consistently improves implant position and alignment over conventional techniques. There is growing evidence that robotic UKA may improve patient outcomes and reduce revision rates, but further study is needed. In addition, further and longer-term studies are needed to determine if improved component position and alignment in TKA and THA leads to improved clinical outcomes and reduced revision rates.

Indexed as

Clinical outcomesImplant alignmentRoboticsTotal hip replacementTotal knee replacementUnicompartmental knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID32367430
PMCPMC7251009

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.