Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34714372›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2021

Imageless robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA : Surgical technique and case-control study compared with primary robotic TKA.

Lars-Rene Tuecking, Peter Savov, Henning Windhagen, Simon Jennings, Dinesh Nathwani, Max Ettinger

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Imageless robotic-assisted total knee revision arthroplasty.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The use of an imageless robotic system in revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Lars-Rene TueckingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift, Anna von Borries Str. 1-6, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Lars-rene.tuecking@diakovere.de.
Peter SavovDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift, Anna von Borries Str. 1-6, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Henning WindhagenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift, Anna von Borries Str. 1-6, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Simon JenningsLondon North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Acton Lane Park Royal, London, UK.
Dinesh NathwaniCharing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London, Fulham Palace Road, London, UK.
Max EttingerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift, Anna von Borries Str. 1-6, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIt is evident from the national joint registries that numbers of revision knee arthroplasty operations are rising. The aim of this article is to introduce a new robotic-assisted approach in UKA to TKA revision arthroplasty and investigate the alignment accuracy, implant component use and surgery time and to compare it to primary robotic-assisted TKA arthroplasty.

methodsThis retrospective, case-control study included patients undergoing image-less robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA (n = 20) and patients undergoing image-less robotic-assisted primary TKA (control group, n = 20) from 11/2018 to 07/2020. The control group was matched based on the BMI and natural alignment. Comparison of groups was based on postoperative alignment, outlier rate, tibial insert size, lateral bone resection depth, incision-to-wound closure time. All surgeries were performed by a single senior surgeon using the same bi-cruciate stabilizing TKA system. Statistical analysis consisted of parametric t‑testing and Fisher's exact test with a level of significance of p < 0.05.

resultsThe two groups showed no differences in mean BMI, natural alignment (p > 0.05) and mean overall limb alignment. No outlier was found for OLA and slope analysis. The smallest insert size (9 mm) was used in 70% of the cases in the revision group (n = 14) and in 90% of the cases in the primary group (n = 18, p = 0.24), distal femoral and tibial resection depth showed no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The incision to wound closure time was longer in the revision group but showed no significant difference.

conclusionImage-less robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA showed a comparable surgery time, and alignment accuracy in comparison to primary robotic-assisted TKA. Comparable bone preservation and subsequent tibial insert size use was observed for both groups.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresCase-Control StudiesHumansKnee JointRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAccuracyCase-control studyRadiographic analysisRetrospective studyRevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34714372
PMCPMC8642254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.