RESUMO
In this study, we aim to explore the differences among the three types of fixation methods for the components of the knee joint in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These methods are cemented, uncemented, and hybrid fixation. Cemented fixation means that a special type of grout is used to attach the components to the bone. Uncemented fixation means that the components are designed to fit tightly into the bone and allow new bone growth to secure them. Hybrid fixation means that a combination of cemented and uncemented fixation is used for different components. We searched four online databases to find studies relevant to our research question. We use the R program (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) for network meta-analysis (NMA) to analyze the data from the studies. We calculate the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between methods. We use these measures for continuous outcomes, meaning they can have any value. For dichotomous outcomes, meaning they can only have two values, we use the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% CI, which are statistical measures of the relative risk and the uncertainty between methods. We assess the quality of randomized controlled trials, which are studies that randomly assign participants to different methods, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 1, a tool that evaluates the potential biases in the studies. We include 21 studies, and our analysis shows that cemented TKA reveals a statistically significant decrease in pain with hybrid TKA (MD = -2.82). That said, we find no significant differences between uncemented and cemented or hybrid (MD = -0.80 and -2.02, respectively). The results show that there is no significant difference between uncemented TKA and cemented TKA or hybrid technique (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.35-2.14; RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.22-2.39, respectively). Also, we find no significant difference between cemented TKA and hybrid TKA (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.24-2.93). Cemented TKA is associated with a lower risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) incidence rate. Moreover, it shows a significant decrease in pain compared to hybrid TKA. Future research is needed to compare among the three interventions.
RESUMO
This study aims to compare the outcomes and advantages of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed using conventional surgical techniques with those conducted using robotic-assisted methods in terms of operation time, Oxford knee score, range of motion, tourniquet time, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index. We performed a literature search through five databases, namely, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, from inception until July 3, 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohorts comparing conventional TKA with robotic-assisted TKA were included. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool for cohort studies. We conducted a meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.4. To analyze continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) along with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). By synthesizing data from a comprehensive analysis, the study unveiled noteworthy distinctions between robotic-assisted arthroplasty and conventional arthroplasty across critical parameters. First, a substantial alteration in the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was observed, with the robotic-assisted approach demonstrating a significant difference (MD = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.25-1.43, p = 0.005). Second, in terms of operative time, a notable reduction in surgical duration was noted with conventional TKA (MD = 16.85, 95% CI = 8.08-25.63, p = 0.0002). The assessment of tourniquet time exhibited a significantly longer duration for robotic-assisted arthroplasty (MD = 35.70, 95% CI = 27.80-43.61, p < 0.001). Our findings indicate that conventional TKA outperforms robotic-assisted TKA, primarily due to its shorter operative and tourniquet times, along with a more favorable change in the HKA angle. However, it is worth noting that robotic-assisted TKA showed a slight advantage in pain outcomes, although this advantage was not statistically significant. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, we recommend conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial that directly compares both TKA methods. This trial should evaluate costs and long-term outcomes while ensuring consistent follow-up durations among studies. Such an approach would greatly assist orthopedic decision-making and contribute to improved TKA outcomes.
RESUMO
Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery.