Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380715›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Does robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have lower complication and revision rates than the conventional procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yifeng Sun, Wei Liu, Jian Hou, Xiuhua Hu, Wenqiang Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Yifeng SunDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Key Laboratory of Rheumatic Disease and Translational Medicine, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Wei LiuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Key Laboratory of Rheumatic Disease and Translational Medicine, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Jian HouEmergency Department, Jimo Traditional Chinese Hospital, Qingdao, People's Republic of China.
Xiuhua HuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Key Laboratory of Rheumatic Disease and Translational Medicine, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Wenqiang ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Key Laboratory of Rheumatic Disease and Translational Medicine, Jinan, People's Republic of China qfszwq@sina.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5584-2588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to compare the complication rates, revision rates and non-implant-specific complications between robotic-assisted and conventional UKA.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched up to 30 June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Case-control studies comparing robotic-assisted and conventional UKA. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from all eligible articles were independently extracted by two authors. We analysed the differences in outcomes between robotic-assisted and conventional UKA by calculating the corresponding 95% CIs and pooled relative risks (RRs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ

resultsA total of 16 studies involving 50 024 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. We found that robotic-assisted UKA had fewer complications (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.96, p=0.036) and lower revision rates (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.86, p=0.017) than conventional UKA. We observed no significant differences in non-implant-specific complications between the two surgical techniques (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.04, p=0.96). No publication bias was found in this meta-analysis.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that robotic-assisted UKA has fewer complications and lower revision rates than conventional UKA; however, owing to important limitations, the results lack reliability, and more studies are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021246927.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresCase-Control StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcomeadult orthopaedicsadult surgerykneeorthopaedic & trauma surgery

Identifiers

PMID34380715
PMCPMC8359483

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.