Robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Robotic knee arthroplasty procedures have emerged as a new trend, garnering attention from orthopedic surgeons globally. It has been hypothesized that the use of robotics enhances the accuracy of prosthesis positioning and alignment restoration. The objective of this study was to provide a high-level, evidence-based comparison between robotic total knee replacements and conventional methods, focusing on radiological and functional outcomes. METHODS: We searched five databases from their inception until June 1, 2022, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of robotic and conventional total knee replacements. We were interested in outcomes such as knee range of motion, clinical and function knee society scores, the Western Ontario and McMaster University score (WOMAC), the Hospital of Special Surgery score, complications, and radiological alignment. This review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes guidelines. We assessed the risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Our search returned seven RCTs suitable for our analysis, which included a total of 1942 knees; 974 of these knees were implanted using robotic arms while the remaining 968 utilized jig-based knee systems. Our findings indicated that robotic knees had significantly better post-operative anatomical (OR - 0.82; 95% CI, - 1.027 to - 0.58, p value < 0.00001) and mechanical restoration (OR - 0.95; 95% CI, - 1.49 to - 0.41, p value < 0.0006). While knee range of motion (OR - 2.23; 95% CI - 4.89-0.43, p value 0.1) and femoral prosthesis position (OR - 0.98; 95% CI, - 2.03-0.08, p value 0.07) also favored robotic knees, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Both clinical and functional outcomes, as well as the rate of complications, were found to be statistically similar between the groups undergoing robotic and traditional knee replacement surgeries. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that robotic total knee replacements offer superior post-operative anatomical and mechanical alignment compared to conventional total knee replacements. Despite this, clinical and functional outcomes, as well as complication rates, were similar between the two. These findings should be considered in light of potential confounding factors. More randomized controlled trials with the latest robotic systems are needed to confirm any superior functional and clinical outcomes from robotic-assisted surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".