在机器人辅助和导航单室膝关节置换术中,患者报告的结果测量差异是否达到最小的临床重要差异?

IF 0.8 Q4 SURGERY
Surgical technology international Pub Date : 2025-07-09
Vinaya Rajahraman, Muhammad A Haider, Braden V Saba, Joshua C Rozell, Ran Schwarzkopf, Armin Arshi
{"title":"在机器人辅助和导航单室膝关节置换术中,患者报告的结果测量差异是否达到最小的临床重要差异?","authors":"Vinaya Rajahraman, Muhammad A Haider, Braden V Saba, Joshua C Rozell, Ran Schwarzkopf, Armin Arshi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Technology is increasingly incorporated into unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) through computer-assisted navigation (N-UKA) and robot-assisted surgery (R-UKA) to improve alignment, implant positioning, and gap balancing. Whether intraoperative technology helps achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional UKA (C-UKA) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess whether differences in PROMs between C-UKA and technology-assisted UKA reached MCID values.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were reviewed for studies comparing PROMs between primary C-UKA (control group) and N-UKA or R-UKA. Delta improvements were compared to established MCID values. Additional radiographic and clinical differences were assessed. The review yielded four (N=328) N-UKA and seven (N=526) R-UKA studies with C-UKA cohorts as controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in three of four studies (75%) comparing N-UKA and C-UKA; however, none of the studies reported values that reached the MCID. Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in four of seven studies (57.1%) comparing R-UKA and C-UKA; however, only three of the studies (42.9%) reported values that reached the MCID. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-UKA and R-UKA were reported in 75% and 57.1% of studies, respectively. Only one study reported improved revision rates with R-UKA compared to C-UKA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though studies may report better improvements in PROMs in N-UKA and R-UKA compared to C-UKA, these often may not achieve clinical significance. Future studies should present outcome differences in the context of validated MCID as well as other metrics such as revision rates and radiographic outliers as the impetus for technology-assisted UKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":22194,"journal":{"name":"Surgical technology international","volume":"45 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Differences in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Robot-Assisted and Navigated Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Differences?\",\"authors\":\"Vinaya Rajahraman, Muhammad A Haider, Braden V Saba, Joshua C Rozell, Ran Schwarzkopf, Armin Arshi\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Technology is increasingly incorporated into unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) through computer-assisted navigation (N-UKA) and robot-assisted surgery (R-UKA) to improve alignment, implant positioning, and gap balancing. Whether intraoperative technology helps achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional UKA (C-UKA) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess whether differences in PROMs between C-UKA and technology-assisted UKA reached MCID values.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were reviewed for studies comparing PROMs between primary C-UKA (control group) and N-UKA or R-UKA. Delta improvements were compared to established MCID values. Additional radiographic and clinical differences were assessed. The review yielded four (N=328) N-UKA and seven (N=526) R-UKA studies with C-UKA cohorts as controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in three of four studies (75%) comparing N-UKA and C-UKA; however, none of the studies reported values that reached the MCID. Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in four of seven studies (57.1%) comparing R-UKA and C-UKA; however, only three of the studies (42.9%) reported values that reached the MCID. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-UKA and R-UKA were reported in 75% and 57.1% of studies, respectively. Only one study reported improved revision rates with R-UKA compared to C-UKA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though studies may report better improvements in PROMs in N-UKA and R-UKA compared to C-UKA, these often may not achieve clinical significance. Future studies should present outcome differences in the context of validated MCID as well as other metrics such as revision rates and radiographic outliers as the impetus for technology-assisted UKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical technology international\",\"volume\":\"45 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical technology international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical technology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过计算机辅助导航(N-UKA)和机器人辅助手术(R-UKA),技术越来越多地应用于单室膝关节置换术(UKA),以改善对齐、植入物定位和间隙平衡。与传统UKA (C-UKA)相比,术中技术是否有助于实现患者报告结果(PROMs)的最小临床重要差异(MCID)尚不清楚。本系统综述旨在评估C-UKA和技术辅助UKA之间的prom差异是否达到了MCID值。材料和方法:检索PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library,比较原发性C-UKA(对照组)与N-UKA或R-UKA之间prom的研究。Delta改进与已建立的MCID值进行了比较。评估其他影像学和临床差异。该综述获得4项(N=328) N- uka研究和7项(N=526) R-UKA研究,C-UKA队列作为对照。结果:在4项比较N-UKA和C-UKA的研究中,有3项(75%)报告了术前和术后PROMs的差异具有统计学意义;然而,没有一项研究报告的数值达到了MCID。在比较R-UKA和C-UKA的7项研究中,有4项(57.1%)报告术前和术后PROMs差异具有统计学意义;然而,只有3项研究(42.9%)报告的数值达到了MCID。分别有75%和57.1%的研究报告了N-UKA和R-UKA的影像学结果改善。只有一项研究报告了与C-UKA相比,R-UKA的复习率有所提高。结论:虽然研究可能报告了N-UKA和R-UKA患者的PROMs比C-UKA患者有更好的改善,但这些研究往往没有达到临床意义。未来的研究应该在验证MCID的背景下提出结果差异,以及其他指标,如修订率和放射学异常值,作为技术辅助UKA的动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Differences in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Robot-Assisted and Navigated Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Differences?

Introduction: Technology is increasingly incorporated into unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) through computer-assisted navigation (N-UKA) and robot-assisted surgery (R-UKA) to improve alignment, implant positioning, and gap balancing. Whether intraoperative technology helps achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional UKA (C-UKA) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess whether differences in PROMs between C-UKA and technology-assisted UKA reached MCID values.

Materials and methods: PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were reviewed for studies comparing PROMs between primary C-UKA (control group) and N-UKA or R-UKA. Delta improvements were compared to established MCID values. Additional radiographic and clinical differences were assessed. The review yielded four (N=328) N-UKA and seven (N=526) R-UKA studies with C-UKA cohorts as controls.

Results: Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in three of four studies (75%) comparing N-UKA and C-UKA; however, none of the studies reported values that reached the MCID. Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in four of seven studies (57.1%) comparing R-UKA and C-UKA; however, only three of the studies (42.9%) reported values that reached the MCID. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-UKA and R-UKA were reported in 75% and 57.1% of studies, respectively. Only one study reported improved revision rates with R-UKA compared to C-UKA.

Conclusion: Though studies may report better improvements in PROMs in N-UKA and R-UKA compared to C-UKA, these often may not achieve clinical significance. Future studies should present outcome differences in the context of validated MCID as well as other metrics such as revision rates and radiographic outliers as the impetus for technology-assisted UKA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
141
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信