Sascha Karunaratne1, Michael Duan2, Evangelos Pappas3, Brett Fritsch4, Richard Boyle4, Sanjeev Gupta4, Paul Stalley4, Mark Horsley4, Daniel Steffens5,2. 1. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. Sascha.Karunaratne@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of semi-active and active robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on post-operative patient-reported outcomes of function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched. Included were comparative studies investigating the effectiveness of semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty compared to any other surgical intervention on function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. Risk of bias and the strength of the evidence were assessed using the Downs and Black tool and the GRADE system, respectively. Relative risks, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 1342 patients were included. All studies compared robotic to conventional surgery, with active robotic surgery evaluated in total hip or knee arthroplasty and semi-active robotic surgery in total hip or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Most studies presented some risk of bias, and the strength of evidence was rated as low to very low quality. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that post-operative functional outcomes were comparable between active robotic and conventional total hip and knee arthroplasty at the short-, medium- and long-term follow-up. No significant difference in pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery were reported in individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic and meta-analyses indicates that functional outcomes for patients undergoing active robotic total hip and knee arthroplasty were comparable to conventional surgery. Whether semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty is effective in improving post-operative pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery is unclear. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017059932.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of semi-active and active robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on post-operative patient-reported outcomes of function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched. Included were comparative studies investigating the effectiveness of semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty compared to any other surgical intervention on function, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. Risk of bias and the strength of the evidence were assessed using the Downs and Black tool and the GRADE system, respectively. Relative risks, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 1342 patients were included. All studies compared robotic to conventional surgery, with active robotic surgery evaluated in total hip or knee arthroplasty and semi-active robotic surgery in total hip or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Most studies presented some risk of bias, and the strength of evidence was rated as low to very low quality. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that post-operative functional outcomes were comparable between active robotic and conventional total hip and knee arthroplasty at the short-, medium- and long-term follow-up. No significant difference in pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery were reported in individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic and meta-analyses indicates that functional outcomes for patients undergoing active robotic total hip and knee arthroplasty were comparable to conventional surgery. Whether semi-active or active robotic hip or knee arthroplasty is effective in improving post-operative pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery is unclear. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017059932.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arthroplasty; Hip; Knee; Patient-reported outcomes; Robotic surgery
Authors: Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Graham Seow-Hng Goh; Merng Koon Wong; Pak Lin Chin; Darren Keng-Jin Tay; Seng-Jin Yeo Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-03-26 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Agesilaus W Churchill; Eva Malacova; Simon F Journeaux; Martin Richardson; Ross Crawford; Mark L Vickers Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jan Kubicek; Filip Tomanec; Martin Cerny; Dominik Vilimek; Martina Kalova; David Oczka Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.576