Early outcomes after robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Outcome of simultaneous bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Simultaneous medial and lateral tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) could be treated with bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The present systematic review aims to assess if simultaneous Bi-UKA is a feasible option for treating medial and lateral tibiofemoral OA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed to find studies that reported on the outcome of simultaneous Bi-UKA for both medial and lateral tibiofemoral OA.

RESULTS

Seven studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the present systematic review. Intraoperative fractures occurred 8 times. Overall, there were 22 revisions of the prosthetic components for any reason with a survival rate that ranged from 83 to 100%. Of these, 16 revisions were for the aseptic loosening of the prosthetic components. Out of 302 surgeries, three were revised due to symptomatic OA progression in the patello-femoral joint. All clinical scores improved at the latest follow-up compared to preoperative values. Moreover, there were no differences in clinical scores of Bi-UKA compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), or medial UKA plus patello-femoral prosthesis. Whereas, compared to TKA, Bi-UKA patients had comparable or superior scores. Finally, the Bi-UKA group had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to the TKA group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of simultaneous Bi-UKA is a valid option to address bicompartmental knee OA in selected patients with low intraoperative fracture rate, low revision rate, satisfactory clinical outcome, and fast recovery.

A Study on Distinguishing ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Orthopaedic Abstracts by Reviewers: Decoding the Discrepancies

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT (OpenAI Incorporated, Mission District, San Francisco, United States) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model that generates human-resembling texts. This AI-generated literary work is comprehensible and contextually relevant and it is really difficult to differentiate from human-written content. ChatGPT has risen in popularity lately and is widely utilized in scholarly manuscript drafting. The aim of this study is to identify if 1) human reviewers can differentiate between AI-generated and human-written abstracts and 2) AI detectors are currently reliable in detecting AI-generated abstracts.

METHODS

Seven blinded reviewers were asked to read 21 abstracts and differentiate which were AI-generated and which were human-written. The first group consisted of three orthopaedic residents with limited research experience (OR). The second group included three orthopaedic professors with extensive research experience (OP). The seventh reviewer was a non-orthopaedic doctor and acted as a control in terms of expertise. All abstracts were scanned by a plagiarism detector program. The performance of detecting AI-generated abstracts of two different AI detectors was also analyzed. A structured interview was conducted at the end of the survey in order to evaluate the decision-making process utilized by each reviewer.

RESULTS

The OR group managed to identify correctly 34.9% of the abstracts' authorship and the OP group 31.7%. The non-orthopaedic control identified correctly 76.2%. All AI-generated abstracts were 100% unique (0% plagiarism). The first AI detector managed to identify correctly only 9/21 (42.9%) of the abstracts' authors, whereas the second AI detector identified 14/21 (66.6%).

CONCLUSION

Inability to correctly identify AI-generated context poses a significant scientific risk as "false" abstracts can end up in scientific conferences or publications. Neither expertise nor research background was shown to have any meaningful impact on the predictive outcome. Focus on statistical data presentation may help the differentiation process. Further research is warranted in order to highlight which elements could help reveal an AI-generated abstract.

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

RESULTS

This NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Each surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).

Radiographic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has long been considered the definitive treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Although tremendous improvements have been made in surgical techniques for conventional TKA, a substantial dissatisfaction rate among patients has persisted because of moderate-to-severe pain and stiffness following TKA. Robot-assisted TKA was developed as an alternative to conventional TKA with the goal of improving operative precision and producing better clinical outcomes with minimal postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes, duration of surgery, and complication rate between robot-assisted TKA and conventional TKA.

Methods

We conducted relevant literature searches of Medline, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library databases with use of specific keywords. The outcomes for continuous variables were pooled into mean differences, whereas the outcomes for dichotomous variables were pooled into odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals with use of random-effects models.

Results

A total of 12 randomized clinical trials were included. Our pooled analysis revealed that robot-assisted TKA was associated with fewer outliers in the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle (p < 0.0001), femoral component (coronal) angle (p = 0.0006), femoral component (sagittal) angle (p = 0.009), tibial component (coronal) angle (p = 0.05), and tibial component (sagittal) angle (p = 0.01) when compared with conventional TKA. The postoperative HKA angle was also significantly more neutral in the robot-assisted TKA group (mean difference, -0.77°; p < 0.0001). However, the complication rate did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted TKA may produce more accurate placement of the prosthetic component and better joint alignment accuracy than conventional TKA as shown by fewer outliers in several joint angles.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Image-based robot assisted bicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of image-based robot-assisted bicruciate retaining bicompartmental knee arthroplasty and compare it to robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty in the Indian population.

METHODS

Between December 2018 and November 2019, five patients (six knees) underwent robot-assisted bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCKA). These patients were demographically matched with five patients (six knees) who underwent robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the same period. Clinical outcomes of these twelve knees were assessed in the form of knee society score (KSS) score, Oxford knee score (OKS), and forgotten joint score (FJS) after a minimum follow-up period of 25 months. The data between the two cohorts were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Scores obtained from both cohorts were subjected to statistical analysis. SPSS software was utilized and the Mann Whitney U-test was utilized to compare the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference found between the two groups in terms of functional outcome.

CONCLUSION

Image-based robot-assisted BCKA is a bone stock preserving and more physiological procedure which can be a promising alternative to patients presenting with isolated arthritis of only two compartments of the knee. Although long-term, larger trials are warranted to establish it as an alternative, our pilot study shows an equally favorable outcome as TKA, making it an exciting new avenue in the field of arthroplasty.

Robust Randomized Controlled Data Is Lacking in Total Joint Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)are regarded as highest level of scientific evidence. There is belief that while prospective randomized control trials (PRCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of interventions, there are very few conducted on lower extremity joint arthroplasty. However, there was a more than adequate amount (n=197) of published RCTs in knee arthroplasty during the 2021 calendar year. Therefore, we studied RCTs on knee arthroplasties for 2021 and assessed them for overall study topic reasons (i.e., devices as well as prostheses, rehabilitation, pain control, blood loss [tranexamic acid], and other), which were then subcategorized by: (1) country of origin; (2) sample size; and (3)whether or not they were follow-up studies. After this, we specifically focused on the studies (n=26) concerning devices or prostheses.

METHODS

 A search of PubMed on "knee arthroplasty" specifying "RCT" using their search function and dates between January 1, 2021 to December 24, 2021 resulted in the analyzed reports. A total of 17.3% reports analyzed rehabilitation methods while 28.4% studied pain control. A total of 20.3% examined blood loss topics and 20.8% investigated other topics.

RESULTS

 We found that 26 studies (13.2%) involved prosthetic design and implantation. Overall, only 15% knee arthroplasty RCTs were conducted in the United States, the mean total final sample size was 133±146 patients, and 7% were follow-up studies. None of the prostheses studies were performed in the United States, and the mean total final sample size of all of these studies was 86±54 patients, and 23% were follow-up studies. Total knee arthroplasty prospective RCTs were not performed in the United States.

CONCLUSION

 The authors believe that other study designs, such as database or registry analyses, are also appropriate in this rapidly advancing field of joint arthroplasty for the continuing evaluation and approval of new prostheses and techniques, while we await more PRCTs in our field.

The risk of tibial eminence avulsion fracture with bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty : a finite element analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the risk of tibial eminence avulsion intraoperatively for bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), with consideration of the effect of implant positioning, overstuffing, and sex, compared to the risk for isolated medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA-M) and bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA).

METHODS

Two experimentally validated finite element models of tibia were implanted with UKA-M, Bi-UKA, and BCR-TKA. Intraoperative loads were applied through the condyles, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL), and the risk of fracture (ROF) was evaluated in the spine as the ratio of the 95^th percentile maximum principal elastic strains over the tensile yield strain of proximal tibial bone.

RESULTS

Peak tensile strains occurred on the anterior portion of the medial sagittal cut in all simulations. Lateral translation of the medial implant in Bi-UKA had the largest increase in ROF of any of the implant positions (43%). Overstuffing the joint by 2 mm had a much larger effect, resulting in a six-fold increase in ROF. Bi-UKA had ~10% increased ROF compared to UKA-M for both the male and female models, although the smaller, less dense female model had a 1.4 times greater ROF compared to the male model. Removal of anterior bone akin to BCR-TKA doubled ROF compared to Bi-UKA.

CONCLUSION

Tibial eminence avulsion fracture has a similar risk associated with Bi-UKA to UKA-M. The risk is higher for smaller and less dense tibiae. To minimize risk, it is most important to avoid overstuffing the joint, followed by correctly positioning the medial implant, taking care not to narrow the bone island anteriorly.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):575-584.

Outcomes of Bi-unicompartmental Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Medial and Lateral Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate differences in functional outcomes between simultaneous bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of medial and lateral knee osteoarthritis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

According to the PRISMA statement, a comprehensive search was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of the Bi-UKA versus the TKA. Of 953 titles, 6 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients were identified, of which 137 underwent Bi-UKA and 149 TKA. TKA reported a mean hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle of 179.4 ± 2.4 compared to that in Bi-UKA measuring 177.2 ± 2.7 (p = 0.0001, 95% CI - 3.02 to - 1.38). No difference was found in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain (4 ± 1.6 and 4.2 ± 1.3 for Bi-UKA and TKA, respectively; p = 0.4996, 95% CI - 0.86 to 0.43). Bi-UKA was favorable in terms of WOMAC function (7.5 ± 1.9 and 9 ± 1.9 for Bi-UKA and TKA, respectively; p = 0.001, 95% CI - 2.29 to - 0.61) and WOMAC stiffness (1.6 ± 1 and 2.4 ± 0.7 for Bi-UKA and TKA, respectively; p = 0.0001, 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.42). Bi-UKA showed a better Knee Society Score (KSS) in comparison to TKA (79.7 ± 7.8 and 75.4 ± 10.5 for Bi-UKA and TKA, respectively; p = 0.0021, 95% CI 1.58-7.02). The differences in postoperative outcomes scores between Bi-UKA and TKA were lower than their respective minimum clinically important differences.

CONCLUSIONS

When Bi-UKA and TKA are compared for the treatment of medial and lateral knee osteoarthritis, Bi-UKA are favorable in terms of WOMAC and KSS even though these values are lower than the minimum clinically important differences; moreover, similar postoperative hip-knee-ankle angle can be expected 3 years after Bi-UKA and TKA.