Robotic‐assisted total knee arthroplasty achieves superior early postoperative outcomes compared to conventional techniques in patients with severe varus
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of robot‐assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) and conventional total knee arthroplasty (CTKA) in patients with varying degrees of varus, and to determine the indications and advantages of RATKA. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent either RATKA or CTKA. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors influencing postoperative hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle deviation. Based on the degree of preoperative HKA angle deviation, patients were grouped into mild varus (HKA angle deviation <10°) and severe varus groups (HKA angle deviation ≥10°). Postoperative outcomes of the two surgical techniques were compared in patients with varying degrees of varus. These included lower limb alignment parameters such as HKA, posterior slope angle (PSA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and femoral distal lateral angle (FDLA); clinical functional scores including Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale for pain (VAS), and range of motion (ROM); as well as operative time and the proportion of cases requiring soft tissue release. Alignment parameters and functional scores were assessed 1 week before surgery and 3 months postoperatively. Results A total of 218 patients were included. The mean ages of the RATKA and CTKA groups were 64.9 ± 6.5 years and 65.1 ± 5.7 years, respectively. The RATKA group included 15 males and 69 females, while the CTKA group included 29 males and 105 females. Multivariate analysis identified preoperative HKA angle deviation as the most important predictor of postoperative HKA alignment, with each 1° increase in preoperative deviation associated with an approximate 0.150° increase postoperatively. In patients with mild varus, there were no significant differences in alignment restoration or clinical scores between RATKA and CTKA. However, in the severe varus groups, RATKA demonstrated significantly better outcomes in terms of HKA, PSA, MPTA and FDLA alignment parameters, lower radiographic outlier rates, reduced need for soft tissue release, and superior HSS, WOMAC and VAS scores ( p < 0.05). Conclusion RATKA provides greater clinical benefits in patients with severe varus, offering more accurate limb alignment, improved implant positioning, and better short‐term functional outcomes. RATKA should be preferentially considered for patients with substantial preoperative HKA angle deviation. Level of Evidence Level Ⅲ, retrospective cohort study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it