Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981161›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

Robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty system has a learning curve of 11 cases and increased operating time.

Mei Lin Tay, Matthew Carter, Scott M Bolam, Nina Zeng, Simon W Young

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors.

Mei Lin TayDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS), University of Auckland, 85 Park Road, Grafton, 1023, Auckland, New Zealand. m.tay@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1704-120X
Matthew CarterStryker New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.
Scott M BolamDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS), University of Auckland, 85 Park Road, Grafton, 1023, Auckland, New Zealand.
Nina ZengDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Waitematā DHB, Auckland, New Zealand.
Simon W YoungDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS), University of Auckland, 85 Park Road, Grafton, 1023, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUKA has higher revision risk, particularly for lower volume surgeons. While robotic-arm assisted systems allow for increased accuracy, introduction of new systems has been associated with learning curves. The aim of this study was to determine the learning curve of a UKA robotic-arm assisted system. The hypothesis was that this may affect operative times, patient outcomes, limb alignment, and component placement.

methodsBetween 2017 and 2021, five surgeons performed 152 consecutive robotic-arm assisted primary medial UKA, and measurements of interest were recorded. Patient outcomes were measured with Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5D, and Forgotten Joint Score at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years. Surgeons were grouped into 'low' and 'high' usage groups based on total UKA (manual and robotic) performed per year.

resultsA learning curve of 11 cases was found with operative time (p < 0.01), femoral rotation (p = 0.02), and insert sizing (p = 0.03), which highlighted areas that require care during the learning phase. Despite decreased 6-week EQ-5D-5L VAS in the proficiency group (77 cf. 85, p < 0.01), no difference was found with implant survival (98.2%) between phases (p = 0.15), or between 'high' and 'low' usage surgeons (p = 0.23) at 36 months. This suggested that the learning curve did not lead to early adverse effects in this patient cohort.

conclusionIntroduction of a UKA robotic-arm assisted system showed learning curves for operative times and insert sizing but not for implant survival at early follow-up. The short learning curve regardless of UKA usage indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansKnee JointLearning CurveProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeKnee replacementLearning curveMedialOperative timeRobotUnicompartmental knee arthroplastyUsage

Identifiers

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.