MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212841791 · doi:10.1016/j.jot.2021.12.004

HURWA robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves component positioning and alignment – A prospective randomized and multicenter study

2022· article· en· W4212841791 on OpenAlex
Zheng Li, Xin Chen, Xiaoquan Wang, Bo Zhang, Wei Wang, Yu Fan, Jun Yan, Xiaofeng Zhang, Yu Zhao, Yuan Lin, Jun Liu, Lin Jin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Translation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Municipal Science and Technology CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineWOMACTotal knee arthroplastyOsteoarthritisRange of motionRandomized controlled trialOxford knee scoreArthroplastyPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes of HURWA robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to those of conventional TKA. METHODS: A total of 150 patients were randomized into two groups - 73 and 77 patients underwent robotic-assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, Knee Society Score (KSS) and range of motion (ROM) were obtained and compared between these two groups. The preoperative and postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle and the rate of HKA≤3° in the two groups were also compared. RESULTS: The postoperative mean HKA angle was 1.801° ​± ​1.608° of varus for the robotic-assisted TKA group and 3.017° ​± ​2.735° of varus for the conventional TKA group; these values were significantly different. The alignment rate for mechanical axis lower than 3° in the robotic-assisted TKA group and the conventional TKA group were 81.2% and 63.5%, respectively. Patients undergone robotic-assisted TKA or conventional TKA had similarly improved knee flexion and functional recovery reflected by WOMAC score, HSS score, SF-36 score and KSS. CONCLUSION: HURWA robotic-assisted TKA is a safe and effective, resulting in better alignment for mechanical axis than conventional TKA. The improvement in knee flexion and functional recovery after HURWA robotic-assisted TKA were similar to those after conventional TKA. However, longer follow-up is needed to determine whether the improved alignment of mechanical axis will produce better long-term clinical outcomes. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: Recently, the robotic-assisted TKA system has been introduced to clinical practice for TKA. Several robotic-assisted TKA systems, including CASPAR, Tsolution, ROSA, ROBODOC and Mako, have been implemented into clinical application.However, the clinical application of these robotic systems was limited due to their technical complexity, insufficient versatility and increased operative time. Until now, there are still no robotic-assisted TKA systems approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China. Therefore, more robotic-assisted TKA systems need to be designed and improved, particularly in China. Through our randomized, multicenter, single blind and parallel controlled trial, we showed that HURWA robot-assisted TKA system is a safe and effective system for TKA, which had improved knee flexion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it