| Title |
A biomechanical comparison between robotic and conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in resection accuracy: a meta‐analysis on cadaveric specimens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40634-023-00587-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sean B. Sequeira, Grant T. Duvall, Henry Boucher |
| Abstract |
Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has seen a rapid increase in utilization with recent literature suggesting that implant accuracy and resection are better optimized than in conventional TKA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of robotic-assisted versus conventional TKA in minimizing biplanar femoral and tibial resection error in cadaveric specimens. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching through PubMed, Cochrane library, and Embase to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of robotic assisted and conventional TKA, according to standard PRISMA guidelines. Evaluated outcomes included femoral coronal resection error (deg), femoral sagittal resection error (deg), tibial coronal resection error (deg), and tibial sagittal resection error (deg). Seven studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 140 cadaveric specimens (robotic: 70, conventional: 70), for resection accuracy between robotic and conventional TKA. Pooled analysis from seven studies revealed a significant difference in femoral coronal and sagittal resection error in favor of robotic systems compared to conventional systems (p < 0.001 & p < 0.001, respectively). The pooled analysis from seven studies revealed a significant difference in tibial sagittal resection error in favor of robotic systems compared to conventional systems following TKA (p = 0.012). Posthoc power analysis revealed a power of 87.2%. The use of robotic TKA is associated with lower femoral coronal, lower femoral sagittal and tibial sagittal resection error compared to conventional TKA. It should be noted that these findings are purely biomechanical - surgeons should interpret these findings along with clinical differences between conventional and robotic systems to determine which system is best for each patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 33% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,824,506
of 23,504,445 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
#194
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,513
of 240,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.