Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39719605›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Comparison of the efficacy of robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis with varying severity deformity.

Pengfei Xing, Junsong Qu, Shuaijing Feng, Jiarong Guo, Tao Huang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

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

Pengfei XingDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China.
Junsong QuDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China.
Shuaijing FengDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China.
Jiarong GuoDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China.
Tao HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China. huangtao@cmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of a domestically produced orthopedic surgical robot for total knee arthroplasty and to explore its applicability in patients with varying degrees of deformity.

methodsThis study retrospectively included 120 patients who underwent TKA at our hospital between February 2023 and June 2024. The patients were divided into a control group (conventional TKA surgery) and an observation group (robot-assisted TKA surgery), with 60 patients in each group. Based on different lower extremity alignment angles, each group was further subdivided into mild deformities (Hip knee ankle angle (HKA angle)deviation < 10°) and significant deformities (HKA angle deviation ≥ 10°). Preoperative and postoperative HKA angles, range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and Knee Society (AKS) scores were recorded for both groups. Postoperative measurements included the posterior tibial slope angle (PSA), femoral coronal component angle (FFC), tibial coronal component angle (FTC), and femoral sagittal component angle (LFC), as well as the incidence of abnormal values for each angle, which were analyzed statistically.

resultsThe operation time in the observation group was longer than that in the control group, but intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the observation group (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, the differences in the HKA and PSA angles and the incidence of abnormal values were significantly better in the robot-assisted group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The other indicators did not significantly differ between the two groups. (P > 0.05). For patients with mild preoperative deformities, those in the robot-assisted group had significantly better postoperative HKA angle deviations and rates of postoperative HKA angle outliers than those in the conventional group. For patients with significant deformities, the robot-assisted group presented greater postoperative HKA and PSA angle deviations than the control group; the postoperative HKA and PSA angle outlier rates were significantly lower in the robot-assisted group (P < 0.05).

conclusionThe TINAVI robotic system demonstrated superior safety and efficacy in TKA surgery. Compared with conventional TKA, the robot-assisted system achieved significantly better outcomes regarding prosthesis implantation accuracy and lower extremity alignment, with a particular advantage in patients with severe limb alignment deformities.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresSeverity of Illness IndexAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRange of Motion, ArticularRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLower extremity force lineRobotically assisted operationShort-term outcomesTINAVI knee systemTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID39719605
PMCPMC11668079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.