[Umbrella review of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus conventional total knee arthroplasty:surgical outcomes].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate and re-evaluate the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty(RA-TKA) compared with to conventional total knee arthroplasty(C-TKA). METHODS: Ten databases, including PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, JBI, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, were comprehensively searched from inception to September 2024. Eligible studies included systematic reviews and meta-analysis comparing the surgical outcomes of RA-TKA and C-TKA. Two independen researchers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool, while the certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE system. The degree of overlap among primary studies included in the systematic reviews/meta-analyses was investigated using the corrected covered area (CCA). RESULTS: A total of 15 systematic reviews/Meta-analyses were included, 5 were rateak as high quality, 1 as moderate quality, and 9 as low quality. A total of 53 pieces of evidence were identified, 11 pieces of evidence were of high quality, 19 were of moderate quality, 16 were of low quality, and 7 were of very low quality. Ten studies assessed the Knee Society score(KSS) and performed a meta-analysis. Among these, seven studies reported that there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative KSS scores between the two surgical methods. Nine studies evaluated the Hospital for Special Surgery(HSS) score, with seven indicating no statistically significant difference in HSS scores following surgery. Twelve studies examined the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score postoperatively, and five found no significant difference between the two surgical approaches. Five studies compared the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle deviation between the two groups, all of which demonstrated that the HKA angle deviation in RA-TKA was significantly lower than in C-TKA. Eight studies reported on the range of motion (ROM) of the knee joint after surgery, with six showing no statistically significant difference between the two methods. Finally, nine studies compared the duration of the surgical procedures, all of which concluded that RA-TKA required a longer operative time than C-TKA. CONCLUSION: With regard to functional outcomes, no statistically significant difference was observed between RA-TKA and C-TKA. Nevertheless, RA-TKA demonstrates advantages in terms of surgical accuracy, precision, and alignment correction.
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 | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".