Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36060731›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics

Comparison of patient reported outcomes after robotic versus manual total knee arthroplasty in the same patient undergoing staged bilateral knee arthroplasty.

Praharsha Mulpur, A B Suhas Masilamani, Mrinal Prakash, Adarsh Annapareddy, Kushal Hippalgaonkar, A V Gurava Reddy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. In Vivo Kinematics for Various Robotically Performed Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Designs.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Praharsha MulpurSunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
A B Suhas MasilamaniSunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
Mrinal PrakashSunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
Adarsh AnnapareddySunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
Kushal HippalgaonkarSunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
A V Gurava ReddySunshine Bone and Joint Institute, Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) has been proven to improve accuracy of component positioning and reducing alignment target outliers. However, the clinical benefit of robotics is often debated. Recent studies have shown reduced pain and faster recovery in the immediate post-operative period and may be associated with improved PROMs and satisfaction. The aim of this study was to assess PROMs and satisfaction in a unique patient population undergoing bilateral staged TKA to compare manual (MTKA) and RATKA in the same patient. Methods: 55 patients underwent bilateral staged TKA, performed by a single surgeon at a single institute. Patients who underwent TKA for the first knee with manual technique and RATKA for the second side, were eligible for inclusion in the study. Primary outcome assessed was the Oxford Knee Score and secondary outcomes included the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), patient satisfaction, mean duration for independent ambulation after TKA, and patient perspectives on recovery evaluated with a questionnaire. Results: Both RATKA and MTKA were associated with comparable PROMs. Though RATKA was associated with improved joint perception (Mean FJS after MTKA surgery was 70.3 (SD = 10.66) and significantly lower than the mean FJS after RATKA (73, SD = 10.95, p-value < 0.01), but the difference was not clinically relevant. A higher proportion of patients were more likely to be very satisfied or satisfied after RATKA. A significant proportion of patients felt the knee operated with RATKA was less painful and felt more natural compared to MTKA at final follow-up (p < 0.01). Majority of patients would undergo RATKA again and recommend robotic-TKA to others. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with improved patient satisfaction, faster independent ambulation compared to manual techniques. PROMs however, were comparable without clinically significant differences. Patients preferred robotic-assisted surgery, with a significantly higher proportion perceiving knee operated by RATKA felt more natural.

Indexed as

KneeMTKA, Manual Total Knee ArthroplastyOutcomesRATKA, Robotic-Assisted Total Knee ArthroplastyRoboticsSatisfactionTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36060731
PMCPMC9428725

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.