Safety and Effectiveness of Robotic‐Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We investigated the advantages of robotic arm‐assisted total knee arthroplasty (raTKA) over conventional manual TKA (cmTKA) by comprehensively comparing patients who received raTKA and cmTKA in terms of postoperative pain, function, imaging assessment, and trauma to the body. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of raTKA in patients using the YUANHUA‐TKA system. Methods In a prospective, randomized single‐blind trial, 60 patients undergoing primary unilateral TKA from October 2020 to December 2020 were randomly assigned to either raTKA or cmTKA. Clinical evaluation, including the time of osteotomy and prosthesis model testing, the total operation time, the visual analogue scale at rest, VAS in motion, opioid consumption, white blood cell count, neutrophil ratio, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C‐reactive protein (CRP), passive and active range of motion (pROM, aROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC [stiffness, pain, and function]) score, gait analysis, keen society score (KSS), adverse events, and blood loss were collected by the project nurse, as well as the imaging evaluation, including the lateral tibia component angle (LTC), frontal femoral component angle, frontal tibia component angle (FTC), lateral femoral component angl, and hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA). The student t ‐test (or the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test) and the χ 2 ‐test (or the Fisher exact test) were used to determine differences in categorical variables. Results No significant difference was found between the two groups in pain throughout the whole follow‐up period. On the third day postoperatively, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate in the cmTKA group was significantly higher ( p = 0.02), as well as the CRP ( p = 0.04). No significant difference was found in the WOMAC stiffnes score or pROM. However, the aROM and the flexion range when walking (FRW) were significantly better in the raTKA group throughout the trial ( p < 0.05). The KSS at the 1‐month follow‐up and the WOMAC function score at the 1‐year follow‐up were both significantly better in the raTKA group ( p < 0.05). The HKA and the LTC in the raTKA group closer to the ideal angle, and the difference between the groups was significant ( p < 0.05). The total operation time of the raTKA group was significantly longer ( p = 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss had no significant difference in the two groups. Conclusion Compared with cmTKA, raTKA with the YUANHUA robot not only avoids extra pain and trauma in patients but promises better functional recovery and improves the accuracy of the prosthesis position and axial alignment reconstruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".