Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33135443›Full record

Trial reportThe bone & joint journal2020

Robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty maintains natural knee joint anatomy compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Matthew S Banger, William D Johnston, Nima Razii, James Doonan, Philip J Rowe, Bryn G Jones, Angus D MacLean, Mark J G Blyth

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The bone & joint journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Surgical Volume in 2020 in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Matthew S BangerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6672-5379
William D JohnstonDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Nima RaziiDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
James DoonanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Philip J RoweDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Bryn G JonesDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Angus D MacLeanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Mark J G BlythDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 12/12/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery.

methodsAn analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups.

resultsThe pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001).

conclusionRobotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article:

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaBone MalalignmentFemaleFemurHumansKnee JointKnee ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTibiaAlignmentBi-unicompartmentalImplant positioningKinematicKnee arthroplastyMechanicalRobotics

Identifiers

PMID33135443
PMCPMC7954184

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.