Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36153769›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

The evolution of robotic systems for total knee arthroplasty, each system must be assessed for its own value: a systematic review of clinical evidence and meta-analysis.

Hannes Vermue, Cécile Batailler, Paul Monk, Fares Haddad, Thomas Luyckx, Sébastien Lustig

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06507046 (Robotic Assisted Surgery Comparing Personalized Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

NCT06507046 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Robotic Assisted Surgery Comparing Personalized Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHelse Møre og Romsdal HFRan2024 to 2035Enrolled152ConditionsKnee OsteoarthritisArmsTotal knee replacement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Hannes VermueDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. Hannes_Vermue@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-4375
Cécile BataillerDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Centre Lyon, Lyon, France.
Paul MonkDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Grafton, New Zealand.
Fares HaddadDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College Hospital, London, UK.
Thomas LuyckxDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium.
Sébastien LustigDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Centre Lyon, Lyon, France.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 11F5919N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic systems have been introduced to improve the precision of total knee arthroplasty. However, different robotic systems are available, each with unique features used to plan and execute the surgery. As such, due to this diversity, the clinical evaluation of each robotic platform should be separated.

methodsAn extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science was conducted with subsequent meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included regarding robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Evaluated outcomes included clinical results, surgical precision, ligament balance, surgical time, learning curve, complications and revision rates. These were split up based on the robot-specific brand: ROBODOC (T-SOLUTION ONE), OMNIBOT, MAKO, NAVIO (CORI) and ROSA.

resultsWith a follow-up of more than 10 years, no improved clinical outcomes have been noted with the ROBODOC system compared to the conventional technique. If available, other platforms only present short-term clinical outcomes. Radiological outcomes are published for most robotic setups, demonstrating improved surgical precision compared to the conventional technique. Gap balance assessment is performed differently between all systems, leading to heterogeneous outcomes regarding its relationship on clinical outcomes. There is a similar learning curve based on operative time for all robotic platforms. In most studies, robot assistance requires longer operative time compared to the conventional technique. Complications and revision rates are published for ROBODOC and MAKO, without clear differences to conventional total knee arthroplasty.

conclusionThe main finding of this systematic review is that the current evidence regarding each robotic system is diverse in quantity and quality. Each system has its own specificities and must be assessed for its own value. Regarding scientific literature, the generic term of robotic should be banned from the general conclusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review level IV.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansKnee JointOperative TimeOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient outcomesRadiological assessmentRobotic surgical procedureTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID36153769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.