The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022
A comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yuxiang, Wang Ruoyu, Gong Song, Han Lizhi, Gong Tianlun, Yi Yihu, Feng Yong, Wang Guohong, Xu Weihua
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) is superior to conventional total hip arthroplasty (CTHA) in terms of radiological and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were searched for articles published before 11 May 2021. The comparison outcomes of interest included radiological and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 2845 hips that compared the radiological and clinical outcomes of RATHA and CTHA were included in this study. There was no significant difference between RATHA and CTHA in cup anteversion or complications. However, RATHA showed better outcomes in terms of leg-length discrepancy, stem alignment, cup inclination, the Lewinnek safe zone, Callanan safe zone, total complications, and intraoperative complications. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty was inferior to CTHA in terms of operative time and dislocations (all p-values < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The radiological and clinical outcomes of RATHA were comparable and even better than those of CTHA, except for operative time and dislocation outcomes.
METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were searched for articles published before 11 May 2021. The comparison outcomes of interest included radiological and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 2845 hips that compared the radiological and clinical outcomes of RATHA and CTHA were included in this study. There was no significant difference between RATHA and CTHA in cup anteversion or complications. However, RATHA showed better outcomes in terms of leg-length discrepancy, stem alignment, cup inclination, the Lewinnek safe zone, Callanan safe zone, total complications, and intraoperative complications. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty was inferior to CTHA in terms of operative time and dislocations (all p-values < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The radiological and clinical outcomes of RATHA were comparable and even better than those of CTHA, except for operative time and dislocation outcomes.