Direct lateral vs. posterior-lateral approach in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic comparison.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: Declarations. Competing interests: E.B., A.M. and G.G. have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. F.C. declares his role as paid consultant and receives royalties from the company Stryker Orthopaedics. This project had no sources of funding. 16. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Dec;141(12):2099-2117. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04134-1. Epub 2021 Sep 7. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them. Elliott J(1), Shatrov J(2), Fritsch B(2), Parker D(2). Author information: (1)Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, 445 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW, 2067, Australia. jellyott@gmail.com. (2)Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, 445 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW, 2067, Australia. INTRODUCTION: A review of the data supporting robotic systems currently available is presented focussing on precision and reproducibility, radiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and survivorship. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scientific literature published on robotic systems for knee arthroplasty was reviewed using the reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any study involving robotic-assisted UKA or TKA that reported precision of implant positioning or functional outcomes or range of motion or survivorship, including cadaveric or dry bone studies with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were identified for robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 24 studies for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Those that reported on radiological outcomes or cadaver studies consistently demonstrated improved precision with the use of robotic systems irrespective of the system. PROMS and survival data demonstrated equivalent short-term results. However, many studies reported outcomes inconsistently and few had long-term clinical follow-up or survivorship data. CONCLUSIONS: This review adds to the body of evidence supporting improved precision and reproducibility with robotic assistance in knee arthroplasty. Despite intensive funding of research into robotic knee systems, there remains considerable heterogeneity in exposure and outcome analysis and few quality long-term studies demonstrating translation to better clinical outcomes and implant survivorship. © 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04134-1