Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34128384›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2021

Can robotic technology mitigate the learning curve of total hip arthroplasty?

Nicholas Kolodychuk, Edwin Su, Michael M Alexiades, Renee Ren, Connor Ojard, Bradford S Waddell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A review of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Biomedical engineering letters · 2023
    Review
  14. Robotics in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Current Concepts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas KolodychukDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-0036
Edwin SuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Michael M AlexiadesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Renee RenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Connor OjardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Bradford S WaddellDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery · USOchsner Medical Center · USCleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTraditionally, acetabular component insertion during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is visually assisted in the posterior approach and fluoroscopically assisted in the anterior approach. The present study examined the accuracy of a new surgeon during anterior (NSA) and posterior (NSP) THA using robotic arm-assisted technology compared to two experienced surgeons using traditional methods.

methodsProspectively collected data was reviewed for 120 patients at two institutions. Data were collected on the first 30 anterior approach and the first 30 posterior approach surgeries performed by a newly graduated arthroplasty surgeon (all using robotic arm-assisted technology) and was compared to standard THA by an experienced anterior (SSA) and posterior surgeon (SSP). Acetabular component inclination, version, and leg length were calculated postoperatively and differences calculated based on postoperative film measurement.

resultsDemographic data were similar between groups with the exception of BMI being lower in the NSA group (27.98 vs 25.2; p = 0.005). Operating time and total time in operating room (TTOR) was lower in the SSA (p < 0.001) and TTOR was higher in the NSP group (p = 0.014). Planned versus postoperative leg length discrepancy were similar among both anterior and posterior surgeries (p > 0.104). Planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were similar among the NSA and SSA (p > 0.425), whereas planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were lower in the NSP (p < 0.001). Outliers > 10 mm from planned leg length were present in one case of the SSP and NSP, with none in the anterior groups. There were no outliers > 10° in anterior or posterior for abduction in all surgeons. The SSP had six outliers > 10° in anteversion while the NSP had none (p = 0.004); the SSA had no outliers for anteversion while the NSA had one (p = 0.500).

conclusionRobotic arm-assisted technology allowed a newly trained surgeon to produce similarly accurate results and outcomes as experienced surgeons in anterior and posterior hip arthroplasty. Cite this article:

Indexed as

ArthroplastyLearning curveRobotic surgeryTechnologyTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34128384
PMCPMC8244790
OpenAlexW3166468335

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.