Verasense sensor‐assisted total knee arthroplasty showed no difference in range of motion, reoperation rate or functional outcomes when compared to manually balanced total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical and functional knee outcomes after Verasense sensor-assisted total knee arthroplasty (VA TKA), and to compare these outcomes, where possible, with those from manually balanced total knee arthroplasty (MB TKA). METHODS: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus from the beginning of January 2012 until the end of June 2022, to identify potentially relevant articles for this review. Selection was based on the following inclusion criteria: full text English- or German-language clinical studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, which assessed clinical and functional outcomes following VA TKA. Not original research, preprints, abstract-only papers, protocols, reviews, expert opinion papers, book chapters, surgical technique papers, and studies pertaining only to unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) were excluded. Several scores (Knee Society Score [KSS], Oxford Knee Score [OKS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-4 subscales [KOOS4] and Physical Function-Computerised Adaptive Testing [PF-CAT]), alongside postoperative measurements of range of motion [ROM], reoperation rates and the rate of manipulation under anaesthesia [MUA]) were used to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes. The quality of included papers, except randomised control trials (RCTs), was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS). For the assessment of included RCTs, the Jadad Scale was used. RESULTS: The literature search identified 243 articles. After removing duplicates, 184 papers were included in the initial screening process. Fourteen of them met all the inclusion criteria following the selection process. Mean MINORS for non-comparative studies value was 11.5 (11-12), and for comparative studies 18.2 (13-21). Mean Jadad Scale score was 3.6 (2-5). Outcomes from a total number of 3633 patients were evaluated (mean age at surgery 68.5 years [32-88 years]). In terms of clinical outcomes, the overwhelming majority of studies observed an improvement after VA TKA, but no statistically significant difference in ROM and reoperation rate when compared to MB TKA. On the other hand, lower rates of MUA have been described in the VA TKA group. An increase in postoperative clinical and functional scores values, when compared to the preoperative ones, has been reported in both groups, although no statistically significant difference between them has been observed. CONCLUSION: The use of Verasense pressure sensors in TKA leads to no significant improvement in ROM, reoperation rate or functional outcomes, when compared to the standard manually balancing technique. However, lower rates of MUA have been described in the VA TKA group. These findings highlight the importance of tools being able to measure ligament stresses or joint pressure for achieving an optimally balanced knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".