{"title":"人工、机器人辅助、计算机导航、增强现实导航、患者专用仪器和加速计导航全髋关节置换术的植入物放置准确性比较：系统回顾与网络元分析》。","authors":"Takanori Miura, Norio Yamamoto, Akihiro Shiroshita, Takahiro Tsuge, Akihiro Saitsu, Junya Yoshitani, Shuri Nakao, Ken Takami","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Malpositioning of the acetabular cup during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to complications. Robotic surgery and navigation techniques aim to address this issue, but there is limited evidence regarding which method can achieve better clinical outcomes. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of various navigation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This NMA of prospective randomized controlled trials compared robot-assisted systems (RAS), computer-assisted navigation systems (CAS), augmented reality-based portable navigation (AR), patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), portable accelerometer-based navigation (PN), and conventional methods (C) for THA procedures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. databases. The primary outcomes included revision surgery and postoperative clinical scores, and the secondary outcomes encompassed cup placement accuracy, acetabular cup placement outliers from the Lewinnek safe zone, surgical time, and complications. We used a Bayesian random-effects NMA, and confidence of evidence was assessed using confidence in NMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 45 studies including 2,122 patients. We did not find large differences in revision surgery, clinical outcome scores, cup inclination, or anteversion angle accuracy among the modalities. AR, CAS, and PSI exhibited a lower risk of outliers from safe zones than C. In addition, RAS and CAS had a longer surgical time than C.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robotic and navigation tools did not reduce the revision risk or enhance clinical outcomes. AR, CAS, PSI, and PN may decrease the risk of cup placement outliers in safe zones. However, the cup placement accuracy was equivalent, and the surgical time may be longer in RAS and CAS than in C.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy Between Manual, Robot-Assisted, Computer-Navigated, Augmented Reality Navigated, Patient-Specific Instrumentation, and Accelerometer Navigated Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Takanori Miura, Norio Yamamoto, Akihiro Shiroshita, Takahiro Tsuge, Akihiro Saitsu, Junya Yoshitani, Shuri Nakao, Ken Takami\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Malpositioning of the acetabular cup during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to complications. Robotic surgery and navigation techniques aim to address this issue, but there is limited evidence regarding which method can achieve better clinical outcomes. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of various navigation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This NMA of prospective randomized controlled trials compared robot-assisted systems (RAS), computer-assisted navigation systems (CAS), augmented reality-based portable navigation (AR), patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), portable accelerometer-based navigation (PN), and conventional methods (C) for THA procedures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. databases. The primary outcomes included revision surgery and postoperative clinical scores, and the secondary outcomes encompassed cup placement accuracy, acetabular cup placement outliers from the Lewinnek safe zone, surgical time, and complications. We used a Bayesian random-effects NMA, and confidence of evidence was assessed using confidence in NMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 45 studies including 2,122 patients. We did not find large differences in revision surgery, clinical outcome scores, cup inclination, or anteversion angle accuracy among the modalities. AR, CAS, and PSI exhibited a lower risk of outliers from safe zones than C. In addition, RAS and CAS had a longer surgical time than C.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robotic and navigation tools did not reduce the revision risk or enhance clinical outcomes. AR, CAS, PSI, and PN may decrease the risk of cup placement outliers in safe zones. However, the cup placement accuracy was equivalent, and the surgical time may be longer in RAS and CAS than in C.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy Between Manual, Robot-Assisted, Computer-Navigated, Augmented Reality Navigated, Patient-Specific Instrumentation, and Accelerometer Navigated Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Background: Malpositioning of the acetabular cup during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to complications. Robotic surgery and navigation techniques aim to address this issue, but there is limited evidence regarding which method can achieve better clinical outcomes. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of various navigation methods.
Methods: This NMA of prospective randomized controlled trials compared robot-assisted systems (RAS), computer-assisted navigation systems (CAS), augmented reality-based portable navigation (AR), patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), portable accelerometer-based navigation (PN), and conventional methods (C) for THA procedures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. databases. The primary outcomes included revision surgery and postoperative clinical scores, and the secondary outcomes encompassed cup placement accuracy, acetabular cup placement outliers from the Lewinnek safe zone, surgical time, and complications. We used a Bayesian random-effects NMA, and confidence of evidence was assessed using confidence in NMA.
Results: We identified 45 studies including 2,122 patients. We did not find large differences in revision surgery, clinical outcome scores, cup inclination, or anteversion angle accuracy among the modalities. AR, CAS, and PSI exhibited a lower risk of outliers from safe zones than C. In addition, RAS and CAS had a longer surgical time than C.
Conclusions: Robotic and navigation tools did not reduce the revision risk or enhance clinical outcomes. AR, CAS, PSI, and PN may decrease the risk of cup placement outliers in safe zones. However, the cup placement accuracy was equivalent, and the surgical time may be longer in RAS and CAS than in C.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
期刊介绍：
JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
