机器人辅助单室膝关节置换术改善了功能效果、并发症和翻修率。

IF 2.8 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Bone & Joint Open Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1302/2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1
Alessandro Bensa, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Luca Deabate, Andrea Illuminati, Benedetta Pompa, Giuseppe Filardo
{"title":"机器人辅助单室膝关节置换术改善了功能效果、并发症和翻修率。","authors":"Alessandro Bensa, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Luca Deabate, Andrea Illuminati, Benedetta Pompa, Giuseppe Filardo","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"5 5","pages":"374-384"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11061807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves functional outcomes, complications, and revisions.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Bensa, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Luca Deabate, Andrea Illuminati, Benedetta Pompa, Giuseppe Filardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"volume\":\"5 5\",\"pages\":\"374-384\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11061807/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:机器人辅助单间室膝关节置换术(R-UKA)被认为是改善传统人工膝关节置换术(C-UKA)效果的一种方法。本荟萃分析旨在从临床结果、放射学结果、手术时间、并发症和翻修等方面分析比较 R-UKA 和 C-UKA 的研究:2024年2月20日,根据系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,在三个数据库(PubMed、Cochrane和Web of Science)中进行了文献检索。纳入标准是用英语撰写的关于 R-UKA 和 C-UKA 的比较研究,没有时间限制。每篇文章的质量均采用唐斯和布莱克质量衡量清单进行评估:在检索到的 3,669 篇文章中,共纳入了 21 项研究,涉及 19 个系列的患者。共分析了 3,074 名患者(59.5% 为女性,40.5% 为男性;平均年龄 65.2 岁(标清 3.9);平均体重指数 27.4 kg/m2(标清 2.2))。与C-UKA相比,R-UKA的膝关节社会评分改善效果更好(平均差异(MD)4.9;P < 0.001),术后Forgotten关节评分值更好(MD 5.5;P = 0.032)。对放射学结果的分析并未发现两种方法之间存在显著的统计学差异。与C-UKA相比,R-UKA手术时间更长(MD 15.6;p < 0.001),但并发症和翻修率更低(分别为5.2% vs 10.1%和4.1% vs 7.2%):这项荟萃分析表明,与传统人工技术相比,机器人UKA方法显著改善了功能效果。与C-UKA相比,R-UKA显示出相似的放射学结果,手术时间更长,但并发症和翻修率更低。总的来说,在对接受UKA手术的患者进行管理时,R-UKA似乎比C-UKA更有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves functional outcomes, complications, and revisions.

Aims: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.

Methods: The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality.

Results: Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2 (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability in adolescents. Revisiting the radiological signs for the first metatarsal pronation assessment. Clinical outcomes after extra-articular resection of hip joint tumour using a custom-made osteotomy guide and 3D-printed endoprosthesis with posterior column preserved. Uncompromised total knee arthroplasty function after distal femoral osteotomy. Outcomes of external versus internal fixation for traumatic lower limb fractures in low- and middle-income countries.
×
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:481959085
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