nach oben

Erschienen in:

15.09.2018 | Review Article

The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Sascha Karunaratne, Michael Duan, Evangelos Pappas, Brett Fritsch, Richard Boyle, Sanjeev Gupta, Paul Stalley, Mark Horsley, Daniel Steffens

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (2017) Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2017 annual report. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/397736/Hip%2C%20Knee%20%26%20Shoulder%20Arthroplasty. Accessed 16 Apr 2018

Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J (2004) Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(5):963–974. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200405000-00012 CrossRef

Xu K, Li Y, Zhang H, Wang C, Xu Y, Li Z (2014) Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 12(5):528–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.014 CrossRefPubMed

van der List J, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle A (2016) Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(11):3482–3495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4305-9 CrossRefPubMed

Jacofsky D, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: A comprehensive review. J Arthroplast 31(10):2353–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026 CrossRef

Picard F, Moody J, DiGioia A, Jaramaz B (2004) Clinical classification of CAOS systems. In: DiGioia A, Jaramaz B, Picard F, Nolte L (eds) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 43–48

Buza J, Waterlain A, Thakkar S, Meree P, Vigdorchik J (2017) Navigation and robotics in knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 5(2):e4. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00047 CrossRefPubMed

Karthik K, Colegate-Stone T, Dasgupta P, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J (2015) Robotic surgery in trauma and orthopaedics: A systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 97-B(3):292–299. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b3.35107 CrossRef

Lang J, Mannava S, Floyd A, Goddard M, Smith B, Mofidi A, Seyler T, Jinnah R (2011) Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93-B(10):1296–1299. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b10.27418 CrossRef

10.

Porter I, Goncalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, Gibbons C, Gangannagaripalli J, Fitzpatrick R, Black N, Greenhalgh J, Valderas J (2016) Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res 5(5):507–519. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0014 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt G, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman A, Phillips B, Schunemann H, Edejer T, Vist G, Williams J, Grade Working Group (2004) Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group. BMC Health Serv Res 4(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 1 May 2017

13.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, PRISMA Group (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Downs S, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52(6):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Pynsent P, Adams D, Disney S (2005) The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87-B(2):241–248. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B2.15095 CrossRef

16.

Lingard E, Katz J, Wright R, Wright E, Sledge C, Kinemax Outcomes Group (2001) Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(12):1856–1864. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200112000-00014 CrossRef

17.

Moonot P, Medalla GA, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE (2009) Correlation between the Oxford knee and American Knee Society scores at mid-term follow-up. J Knee Surg 22(3):226–230. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247753 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Singh J, Schleck C, Harmsen W, Lewallen D (2013) Validation of the Hospital for Special Surgery knee questionnaire: convergent validity, responsiveness and sensitivity to change. Paper presented at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 25–30

19.

Singh J, Schleck C, Harmsen W, Lewallen D (2016) Validation of the Mayo Hip Score: Construct validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0868-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

McGrory B, Harris W (1996) Can the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index be used to evaluate different hip joints in the same patient? J Arthroplast 11(7):841–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80184-7 CrossRef

21.

Bargar W, Bauer A, Borner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the ROBODOC system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199809000-00011 CrossRef

22.

Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, Carrero V, Lampe F, Dries S, Quante M, Schwieger K, Hille E, Morlock M (2003) Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement: A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(8):1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007 CrossRef

23.

Siebel T, Kafer W (2005) Clinical outcome following robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: A controlled and prospective study of seventy-one patients. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143(4):391–398. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-836776 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Nakamura N, Yoshikawa H (2006) Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(7):957–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.001 CrossRef

25.

Hananouchi T, Sugano N, Nishii T, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kakimoto A, Yamamura M, Yoshikawa H (2007) Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. J Orthop Res 25(8):1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20376 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T, Kakimoto A, Miki H (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lim S, Ko K, Park C, Moon Y, Park Y (2015) Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with a short femoral stem: A prospective randomized short-term outcome study. Comput Aided Surg 20(1):41–46. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2015.1076044 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bukowski B, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont M, Illgen R (2016) Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 29:303–308PubMed

29.

Park S, Lee C (2007) Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22(7):1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036 CrossRef

30.

Song E, Seon J, Park S, Jung W, Park H, Lee G (2011) Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: A prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(7):1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Song E, Seon J, Yim J, Netravali N, Bargar W (2013) Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Liow M, Goh G, Wong M, Chin P, Tay D, Yeo S (2016) Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: A 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(9):22942–22951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3 CrossRef

33.

Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P, Harris S, Jakopec M, Rodriguez F, Barrett A, Davies B (2006) Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: A prospective, randomised controlled study of the Acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88-B(2):188–197. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17220 CrossRef

34.

Coon T, Driscoll M, Horowitz S, Conditt M (2011) Robotically assisted UKA is more accurate than manually instrumented UKA. Int J Med Robot 7:50

35.

Australian Government (2005) Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/medical-technology/report/medicaltechnology.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2017

36.

American Joint Replacement Registry (2016) AJRR's patient-reported outcome measure guide. http://www.ajrr.net/images/downloads/Data_elements/AJRR_PROMS_GUIDE_2016_FINAL_4-5_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2017

37.

National Health Service (2017) Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in England: A guide to PROMs methodology. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

38.

International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (2017) ICHOM: Hip & knee osteoarthritis data collection reference guide. vol 2.2.1. Massachusetts, USA

39.

Rolfson O, Wissig S, van Maasakkers L, Stowell C, Ackerman I, Ayers D, Barber T, Benzakour T, Bozic K, Budhiparama N, Caillouette J, Conaghan P, Dahlberg L, Dunn J, Grady-Benson J, Ibrahim S, Lewis S, Malchau H, Manzary M, March L, Nassif N, Nelissen R, Smith N, Franklin P (2016) Defining an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Consensus of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Working Group. Arthritis Care Res 68(11):1631–1639. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22868 CrossRef

40.

Carr A, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price A, Arden N, Judge A, Beard D (2012) Knee replacement. Lancet 379(9823):1331–1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Pivec R, Johnson A, Mears S, Mont M (2012) Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 380(9855):1768–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Turktas U, Piskin A, Poehling GG (2016) Short-term outcomes of robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40(5):919–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2786-7 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41(11):2265–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3633-9 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Sascha Karunaratne
Michael Duan
Evangelos Pappas
Brett Fritsch
Richard Boyle
Sanjeev Gupta
Paul Stalley
Mark Horsley
Daniel Steffens
Publikationsdatum: 15.09.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4140-3

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

Does the body mass index influence the long-term survival of unicompartmental knee prostheses? A retrospective multi-centre study

Authors’ reply to Comment on: Patient-related outcomes after proximal tibial fractures

Autologous mesenchymal stem cell implantation, hydroxyapatite, bone morphogenetic protein-2, and internal fixation for treating critical-sized defects: a translational study

Surgeons and robots

The use of non-vascularized bone grafts to treat osteonecrosis of the femoral head: indications, techniques, and outcomes

Surgical medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction versus non-surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation: a prospective controlled trial

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie