Literature DB >> 30051277

Robot-assisted vs. conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jun Fu1, Yuning Wang2, Xiang Li1, Baozhan Yu1, Ming Ni1, Wei Chai1, Libo Hao1, Jiying Chen3.   

Abstract

Numerous advances have been made in prosthesis design, instrumentation and postoperative rehabilitation for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; however, only 70-86% of patients are satisfied with the functional outcome and revision rates range between 10% and 20%. The primary outcome for this meta-analysis was implantation accuracy of component positioning and tibiofemoral component safe zone. A total of three randomized controlled trials (RCT), three quasi-RCTs and one prospective trial were included in this review. It was found that the use of robotic-assisted systems reduces implantation errors without an increase in adverse events. There are only a few reports about clinical outcome and long-term follow-up and whether the more accurate component positioning results in a better clinical effect or a better long-term survival of the implants is unknown.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse events; Comparative study; Implant; Orthopedic surgery; Randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30051277     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-018-3604-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  26 in total

1.  Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nicholas J Dunbar; Martin W Roche; Brian H Park; Sharon H Branch; Michael A Conditt; Scott A Banks
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Katherine P MacCallum; Jonathan R Danoff; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-10-06

Review 3.  Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics.

Authors:  Michael L Swank; Martha Alkire; Michael Conditt; Jess H Lonner
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2009-02

4.  Accuracy of a freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee replacement.

Authors:  Julie R Smith; Philip E Riches; Philip J Rowe
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2013-08-11       Impact factor: 2.547

5.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?

Authors:  Mustafa Citak; Eduardo M Suero; Musa Citak; Nicholas J Dunbar; Sharon H Branch; Michael A Conditt; Scott A Banks; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Mechanisms of failure in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J R Moreland
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Jess H Lonner; Julie R Smith; Frederic Picard; Brian Hamlin; Philip J Rowe; Philip E Riches
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Assessment of accuracy of robotically assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ali Mofidi; Johannes F Plate; Bo Lu; Michael A Conditt; Jason E Lang; Gary G Poehling; Riyaz H Jinnah
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 9.  The Evolution of Image-Free Robotic Assistance in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jess H Lonner; Vincent M Moretti
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2016 May-Jun

10.  Survival of medial unicondylar arthroplasties placed by one surgeon 1984-1998.

Authors:  Thomas H Eickmann; Matthew B Collier; Fumio Sukezaki; James P McAuley; Gerard A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  5 in total

1.  [Analysis of the influence of tibial component posterior slope angle on short- and mid-term effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  Yingbin Wu; Weijie Lu; Zhichen Li; Huifeng Xie; Lin Tang; Enhao Pan
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2022-02-15

Review 2.  Robotic arm-assisted arthroplasty: The latest developments.

Authors:  Xin Chen; Shu Deng; Mao-Lin Sun; Rui He
Journal:  Chin J Traumatol       Date:  2021-09-02

3.  Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Reha N Tandogan; Nanne P Kort; Ersin Ercin; Floris van Rooij; Luca Nover; Mo Saffarini; Michael T Hirschmann; Roland Becker; David Dejour
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.114

Review 4.  Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review.

Authors:  Pei Liu; Fei-Fan Lu; Guo-Jie Liu; Xiao-Hong Mu; Yong-Qiang Sun; Qi-Dong Zhang; Wei-Guo Wang; Wan-Shou Guo
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2021-05-02

5.  Imageless robotic handpiece-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a learning curve analysis of surgical time and alignment accuracy.

Authors:  Peter Savov; Lars-Rene Tuecking; Henning Windhagen; Jonathan Ehmig; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.067

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.