Does Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Improve Outcomes of Adult Osteoarthritis Patients-A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1111/os.70007
Han-Yang Yue, Guo-Qiang Ding, Hua-Xin Li, Jun Zeng, Xiao-Dan Jiang, Zong-Dong Zhu, Hua Jiang
{"title":"Does Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Improve Outcomes of Adult Osteoarthritis Patients-A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Han-Yang Yue, Guo-Qiang Ding, Hua-Xin Li, Jun Zeng, Xiao-Dan Jiang, Zong-Dong Zhu, Hua Jiang","doi":"10.1111/os.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a standard treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (KOA). While conventional TKA (cTKA) is widely used, robotic-assisted TKA (rTKA) has gained attention for its potential precision and improved outcomes. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of rTKA versus cTKA remain unclear due to inconsistent findings in existing studies. This study aims to systematically review and compare the efficacy and safety of rTKA and cTKA in patients with KOA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of seven databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this systematic review. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used to evaluate the stability of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five RCTs involving 3156 patients with KOA were included. The only statistically significant clinical difference between patients who received rTKA and cTKA was that the rTKA group was associated with a longer operative duration (MD = 22.38 mins; 95% confidence interval [CI] [12.86, 31.91]; p < 0.00001; I <sup>2</sup> = 98%). As for functional parameters, the two groups had similar results in postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), and Hospital for Special Surgery Score (HSS). Regarding the tibiofemoral angle and the coronal femoral component angle, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Patients in the rTKA group had a higher hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) (MD = 0.63; 95% CI [0.23, 1.03]; p = 0.002; I <sup>2</sup> = 52%), lower HKA deviation (MD = -0.99; 95% CI [-1.24, -0.74]; p < 0.00001; I <sup>2</sup> = 0%), and a higher coronal tibial component angle (MD = 0.46; 95% CI [0.07, 0.85]; p = 0.02; I <sup>2</sup> = 81%) after the surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While rTKA appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to cTKA, the mixed evidence from our study highlights the need for further research to fully understand its clinical implications and long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROEPERO: CRD42024541052.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1549-1560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12146114/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a standard treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (KOA). While conventional TKA (cTKA) is widely used, robotic-assisted TKA (rTKA) has gained attention for its potential precision and improved outcomes. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of rTKA versus cTKA remain unclear due to inconsistent findings in existing studies. This study aims to systematically review and compare the efficacy and safety of rTKA and cTKA in patients with KOA.

Methods: A total of seven databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this systematic review. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used to evaluate the stability of the results.

Results: Twenty-five RCTs involving 3156 patients with KOA were included. The only statistically significant clinical difference between patients who received rTKA and cTKA was that the rTKA group was associated with a longer operative duration (MD = 22.38 mins; 95% confidence interval [CI] [12.86, 31.91]; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 98%). As for functional parameters, the two groups had similar results in postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), and Hospital for Special Surgery Score (HSS). Regarding the tibiofemoral angle and the coronal femoral component angle, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Patients in the rTKA group had a higher hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) (MD = 0.63; 95% CI [0.23, 1.03]; p = 0.002; I 2 = 52%), lower HKA deviation (MD = -0.99; 95% CI [-1.24, -0.74]; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%), and a higher coronal tibial component angle (MD = 0.46; 95% CI [0.07, 0.85]; p = 0.02; I 2 = 81%) after the surgery.

Conclusions: While rTKA appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to cTKA, the mixed evidence from our study highlights the need for further research to fully understand its clinical implications and long-term outcomes.

Trial registration: PROEPERO: CRD42024541052.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器人辅助全膝关节置换术能否改善成人骨关节炎患者的疗效--系统回顾与试验序列荟萃分析》(Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthropasty Does Improve Outcomes of Adult Osteoarthritis Patients-A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis)。
背景和目的:全膝关节置换术(TKA)是治疗终末期膝关节骨性关节炎(KOA)的标准疗法。传统 TKA(cTKA)被广泛使用,而机器人辅助 TKA(rTKA)因其潜在的精确性和更好的疗效而备受关注。然而,由于现有研究结果不一致,rTKA 与 cTKA 的疗效和安全性对比仍不明确。本研究旨在系统回顾和比较 rTKA 和 cTKA 在 KOA 患者中的疗效和安全性:方法:共检索了七个数据库。本系统性综述仅纳入随机对照试验(RCT)。采用亚组分析、敏感性分析和试验序列分析(TSA)来评估结果的稳定性:结果:共纳入 25 项 RCT,涉及 3156 名 KOA 患者。接受 rTKA 和 cTKA 的患者之间唯一具有统计学意义的临床差异是,rTKA 组的手术时间更长(MD = 22.38 分钟;95% 置信区间 [CI] [12.86,31.91];P 2 = 98%)。在功能参数方面,两组的术后膝关节社会评分(KSS)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学(WOMAC)以及特殊外科医院评分(HSS)结果相似。至于胫骨股骨角和股骨组件冠状角,两组之间未发现明显差异。rTKA组患者的髋膝踝角度(HKA)较高(MD = 0.63; 95% CI [0.23, 1.03]; p = 0.002; I2 = 52%),HKA偏差较低(MD = -0.99; 95% CI [-1.24,-0.74];P 2 = 0%),术后胫骨冠状组件角度更高(MD = 0.46;95% CI [0.07,0.85];P = 0.02;I2 = 81%):尽管rTKA似乎是cTKA的一种可行且安全的替代方案,但我们的研究证据参差不齐,这凸显了进一步研究的必要性,以充分了解其临床意义和长期疗效:PREPERO:CRD42024541052。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Piezo 1 in the Study of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: Phenotype, Mechanism and Treatment. Finite-Element Comparison of a Proximal Femoral Laterally Bionic Intramedullary Nail (PFLBN) Versus PFNA and PFBN for AO/OTA 31-A3.1 Intertrochanteric Fractures. Risk Factors and Clinical Significance for Retrolisthesis of Adjacent Segment After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Single-Segment Spinal Decompression and Fusion With Selective Nerve Root Block in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study. Application of a Novel Surgical Instrumentation System for Subtrochanteric Shortening Osteotomy in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Cohort Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1