Contemporary analysis of the learning curve for robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty emerging technologies.

Robotic assisted (RA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers improved acetabular component placement and radiographic outcomes, but inconsistent assessment methods of its learning curves render the evaluation of adopting novel platforms challenging. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the learning curve associated with RA-THA, both tracking a surgeon's performance across initial cases and comparing their performance to manual THA (M-THA). PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar were searched on June 16, 2023, to identify studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 16, 2023 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023437339). The query yielded 655 unique articles, which were screened for eligibility. The final analysis included 11 articles, evaluating 1351 THA procedures. Risk of bias was assessed via the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The mean MINORS score was 21.3 ± 0.9. RA-THA provided immediate improvements in acetabular component placement accuracy and radiographic outcomes compared to M-THA, with little to no experience required to achieve peak proficiency. A modest learning curve (12-17 cases) was associated with operative time, which was elevated compared to M-THA (+ 9-13 min). RA-THA offers immediate advantages to M-THA for component placement accuracy and radiographic outcomes. Surgeons should expect to experience increased operative times, which become less pronounced or equivalent to M-THA after a modest caseload.

Navigating the learning curve: assessing caseload and comparing outcomes before and after the learning curve of computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Computer-navigated (CN) total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers improved acetabular component placement and radiographic outcomes, but inconsistent assessment methods of its learning curves render the evaluation of adopting a novel platform challenging. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the learning curve associated with CN-THA, both tracking a surgeon's performance across initial cases and comparing their performance to manual THA (M-THA). METHODS: A search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar on June 16, 2023 to find research articles published after January 1, 2000 (PROSPERO registration: CRD4202339403) that investigated the learning curve associated with CN-THA. 655 distinct articles were retrieved and subsequently screened for eligibility. In the final analysis, nine publications totaling 847 THAs were evaluated. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool was utilized to evaluate the potential for bias, with the mean MINORS score of 21.3 ± 1.2. RESULTS: CN-THA showed early advantages to M-THA for component placement accuracy and radiographic outcomes but longer operative times (+ 3- 20 min). There was a learning curve required to achieve peak proficiency in these metrics, though mixed methodologies made the required caseload unclear. CONCLUSIONS: CN-THA offers immediate advantages to M-THA for component placement accuracy and radiographic outcomes, though CN-THA's advantages become more pronounced with experience. Surgeons should anticipate longer operative times during the learning curve for CN-THA, which lessen following a modest caseload. A more thorough evaluation of novel computer-navigated technologies would be enhanced by adopting a more uniform method of defining learning curves for outcomes of interest. Registration PROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42023394031, 27 June 2023.

Characterization and Reach of Orthopaedic Research Posted to Preprint Servers: Are We "Undercooking" Our Science?

BACKGROUND: Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication? METHODS: Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: "orthopaedic," "orthopedic," "bone," "cartilage," "ligament," "tendon," "fracture," "dislocation," "hand," "wrist," "elbow," "shoulder," "spine," "spinal," "hip," "knee," "ankle," and "foot." Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched. RESULTS: The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis. CONCLUSION: Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® , The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research , removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.