RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a common surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Partial knee arthroplasty is also a treatment option for patients with arthritis present in only one or two knee compartments. Partial knee arthroplasty can preserve the natural knee biomechanics, but these replacements may not last as long as total knee replacements. Robotic-assisted orthopedic techniques can help facilitate partial knee replacements, increasing accuracy and precision. This trial will investigate the feasibility and assess clinical outcomes for a larger definitive trial. METHODS: This is a protocol for an ongoing parallel randomized pilot trial of 64 patients with uni- or bicompartmental knee arthritis. Patients are randomized to either receive robot-assisted partial knee arthroplasty or manual total knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome of this pilot is investigating the feasibility of a larger trial. Secondary (clinical) outcomes include joint awareness, return to activities, knee function, patient global impression of change, persistent post-surgical pain, re-operations, resource utilization and cost-effectiveness, health-related quality of life, radiographic alignment, knee kinematics during walking gait, and complications up to 24 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The RoboKnees pilot study is the first step in determining the outcome of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. Conclusions from this study will be used to design future large-scale trials. This study will inform surgeons about the potential benefits of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT04378049) on 4 May 2020, before the first patient was randomized.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: There remains a lack of consensus around autograft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), though there is a large body of overlapping systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and their methodological quality were aimed to be further assessed, using a validated tool known as assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 23 April 2023 for systematic reviews (with/without meta-analysis) comparing primary ACLR autografts. A final quality rating from AMSTAR-2 was provided for each study ('critically low', 'low', 'moderate' or 'high' quality). Correlational analyses were conducted for ratings in relation to study characteristics. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and ninety-eight studies were screened, and 50 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-four studies (48%) were rated as 'critically low', 17 (34%) as 'low', seven (14%) as 'moderate' and two (4%) as 'high' quality. The least followed domains were reporting on sources of funding (1/50 studies), the impact of risk of bias on results of meta-analyses (11/36 studies) and publication bias (17/36 studies). There was a significant increase in the frequency of studies graded as 'moderate' compared to 'low' or 'critically low' quality over time (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing autografts in ACLR is low, with many studies being rated lower due to commonly absent aspects of systematic review methodology such as investigating sources of funding and publication bias. More recent studies were generally more likely to be of higher quality. Authors are advised to consult AMSTAR-2 prior to conducting systematic reviews in ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.