Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33666686›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

Robot-assisted knee arthroplasty improves component positioning and alignment, but results are inconclusive on whether it improves clinical scores or reduces complications and revisions: a systematic overview of meta-analyses.

Nanne Kort, Patrick Stirling, Peter Pilot, Jacobus Hendrik Müller

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.2field-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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Nanne KortCortoClinics, Schijndel, The Netherlands.
Patrick StirlingReSurg SA, Rue Saint-Jean 22, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland.
Peter PilotIMUKA, Roosteren, The Netherlands.
Jacobus Hendrik MüllerReSurg SA, Rue Saint-Jean 22, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland. cobus@resurg.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0855-3852
Federal Roads Office · CHGGZ Oost Brabant · NLUniversity of Jijel · DZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this systematic overview was to identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of meta-analyses on robot-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that robotic assistance would reduce complications and revision rates, yield better clinical scores, and improve component positioning and alignment.

methodsTwo researchers independently conducted a literature search using Embase

resultsA total of ten meta-analyses were identified; four on robot-assisted UKA (n, 1880 robot-assisted vs. 2352 conventional UKA; follow-up, 0 to 60 months), seven on robot-assisted TKA (n, 4567 robot-assisted vs. 5966 conventional TKA; follow-up, 0 to 132 months). Of the meta-analyses on UKA, one found that robotic assistance reduced complication rates (relative risk (RR), 0.62), one found that it improved clinical scores (weighted mean difference (WMD), 19.67), three found that it extended operation times (WMD, 15.7 to 17.1 min), and three found that it improved component positioning and alignment (WMD, - 1.30 to - 3.02 degrees). Of the meta-analyses on TKA, two found that robotic assistance improved clinical scores (WMD, 1.62-1.71), two found that that it extended surgery times (WMD, 21.5-24.26 min), and five found that it improved component positioning and alignment (WMD, - 0.50 to - 10.07 degrees). None of the meta-analyses reported differences in survivorship between robot-assisted versus conventional knee arthroplasty.

conclusionRobot-assisted knee arthroplasty enabled more accurate component positioning and placement within target zones, but extended operation time considerably. Although robotic assistance improved component positioning, its benefits regarding clinical scores, patient satisfaction and implant survivorship remains to be confirmed. Finally, this overview revealed that six of the ten meta-analyses were of 'critically low quality', calling for caution when interpreting results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansKnee JointMeta-Analysis as TopicReoperationTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyKneeReplacementReviewRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID33666686
OpenAlexW3135576280

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.