Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34997477›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

No difference in PROMs between robotic-assisted CR versus PS total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study.

Jarod A Richards, Mark D Williams, Neil A Gupta, Joseph M Kitchen, John E Whitaker, Langan S Smith, Arthur L Malkani

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Early and delayed periprosthetic joint infection in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jarod A RichardsDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Mark D WilliamsDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Neil A GuptaDept. of Orthopedics, UofL Health, Jewish Hospital, 201 Abraham Flexner Way, Ste. 100, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Joseph M KitchenDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
John E WhitakerDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Langan S SmithDept. of Orthopedics, UofL Health, Jewish Hospital, 201 Abraham Flexner Way, Ste. 100, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Arthur L MalkaniDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. arthur.malkani@louisville.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2636-9215
University of Louisville · USJewish Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant clinical differences exist in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between PS and CR TKAs implanted using robotic-assisted technology. This was an IRB-approved retrospective study from an institutional database evaluating 214 knees in 190 patients. Inclusion criteria included: primary RA-TKA, age 22-89 at the time of surgery, preoperative coronal limb deformity within 15º of neutral alignment, and minimum 1-year follow-up. The PS cohort consisted of 103 patients with 107 RA-TKAs, whereas the CR cohort consisted of 87 patients with 107 RA-TKAs. Cohorts were compared on the basis of demographics and PROMs (KSS knee, KSS function, FJS-12, KOOS-JR, WOMAC, and 5-point satisfaction Likert scale) collected preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Statistical analyses comparing measures were conducted via Student's t tests for continuous data and Chi-squared analyses for categorical data. There were no significant differences identified in short-term PROMs at 1-year follow-up between cohorts (all p values > 0.05). 93.1% of patients with CR knees and 94.7% of patients with PS knees reported a satisfaction level of "very satisfied" or "satisfied". Revision arthroplasty occurred in six knees (2.8%, 3 knees in CR cohort, 3 knees in PS cohort) with no differences in overall complications between groups. The use of RA-TKA technology promoted high patient satisfaction scores within this study, independent of CR or PS implant type with no significant differences in PROMs, satisfaction, revisions, or complications between the two groups.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMiddle AgedRange of Motion, ArticularRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultComputer navigation surgeryCruciate retainingPosterior stabilizingRobotic surgeryTotal knee arthroplastyTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID34997477
OpenAlexW4205970010

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.