Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
Use of intraoperative technology in total knee arthroplasty is not associated with reductions in postoperative pain.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Kim Andrew G, Bernhard Zachary, Acuña Alexander J, Wu Victoria S, Kamath Atul F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Our systematic review and meta-analysis sought to assess how technology-assistance impacts (1) post-operative pain and (2) opioid use in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS: Four online databases were queried for studies published up to October 2021 that reported on pain and opioid usage between technology-assisted and manual TKA (mTKA) patients. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilized to calculate pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted to isolate robotic-arm assisted (RAA) and computed-assisted navigation (CAN) cohorts. Risk of bias was assessed for all included non-randomized studies with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. For the randomized control trials included in our study, the Detsky scale was applied.
RESULTS: Our analysis included 31 studies, reporting on a total of 761,300 TKAs (mTKA: n = 753,554; Computer-Assisted Navigation (CAN): n = 1,309; Robotic-Arm Assisted (RAA): n = 6437). No differences were demonstrated when evaluating WOMAC (MD: 0.00, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.69; p = 1.00), KSS (MD: 0.01, 95% CI - 1.46 to 1.49; p = 0.99), KOOS (MD - 2.91, 95% CI - 6.17 to 0.34; p = 0.08), and VAS (MD - 0.54, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.007; p = 0.02) pain scores between cohorts. There was mixed evidence regarding how opioid consumption differed between TKA techniques.
CONCLUSION: The present analysis demonstrated no difference in terms of pain across a variety of utilized patient-reported pain measurements. However, there were mixed results regarding how opioid consumption varied between manual and technology-assisted cohorts, particularly in the immediate post-operative period.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: Four online databases were queried for studies published up to October 2021 that reported on pain and opioid usage between technology-assisted and manual TKA (mTKA) patients. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilized to calculate pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted to isolate robotic-arm assisted (RAA) and computed-assisted navigation (CAN) cohorts. Risk of bias was assessed for all included non-randomized studies with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. For the randomized control trials included in our study, the Detsky scale was applied.
RESULTS: Our analysis included 31 studies, reporting on a total of 761,300 TKAs (mTKA: n = 753,554; Computer-Assisted Navigation (CAN): n = 1,309; Robotic-Arm Assisted (RAA): n = 6437). No differences were demonstrated when evaluating WOMAC (MD: 0.00, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.69; p = 1.00), KSS (MD: 0.01, 95% CI - 1.46 to 1.49; p = 0.99), KOOS (MD - 2.91, 95% CI - 6.17 to 0.34; p = 0.08), and VAS (MD - 0.54, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.007; p = 0.02) pain scores between cohorts. There was mixed evidence regarding how opioid consumption differed between TKA techniques.
CONCLUSION: The present analysis demonstrated no difference in terms of pain across a variety of utilized patient-reported pain measurements. However, there were mixed results regarding how opioid consumption varied between manual and technology-assisted cohorts, particularly in the immediate post-operative period.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.