The Experts below are selected from a list of 27435 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mark Blyth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Robotic Arm assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty the 2 year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018Co-Authors: Alisdair Gilmour, Philip Rowe, Matthew Banger, Angus Maclean, Bryn Jones, Iona Donnelly, Mark BlythAbstract:Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis has potential benefits over total knee arthroplasty but UKA has a higher revision rate. Robotic-assisted UKA is increasingly common and offers more accurate implant positioning and limb alignment, lower early postoperative pain but evidence of functional outcome is lacking. The aim was to assess the clinical outcomes of a single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial, comparing Robotic-Arm-assisted UKA with conventional surgery. Methods: A total of 139 participants were recruited and underwent Robotic-Arm-assisted (fixed bearing) or conventional (mobile bearing) UKA. Fifty-eight patients in the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 54 in the manual group at 2 years. The main outcome measures were the Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Score and revision rate. Results: At 2 years, there were no significant differences for any of the outcome measures. Sub-group analysis (n = 35) of participants with a preoperative University of California Los Angeles Activity Scale >5 (more active) was performed. In this sub-group, the median Oxford Knee Score at 2 years was 46 (IQR 42.0-48.0) for Robotic-Arm-assisted and 41 (IQR 38.5-44.0) for the manual group (P = .036). The median American Knee Society Score was 193.5 (IQR 184.0-198.0) for the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 174.0 (IQR 166.0-188.5) for the manual group (P = .017). Survivorship was 100% in Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 96.3% in the manual group. Conclusion: Overall, participants achieved an outcome equivalent to the most widely implanted UKA in the United Kingdom. Sub-group analysis suggests that more active patients may benefit from Robotic-Arm-assisted surgery. Long term follow-up is required to evaluate differences in survivorship.
-
Robotic Arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial
Bone and Joint Research, 2017Co-Authors: Mark Blyth, I Anthony, Philip Rowe, Matthew Banger, Angus Maclean, Bryn JonesAbstract:Objectives This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing Robotic Arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the Robotic Arm-assisted group. Methods A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided Robotic Arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the Robotic Arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the Robotic Arm-assisted group had better AKSS (Robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (Robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving Robotic Arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of Robotic-Arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion Robotic Arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the Robotic Arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article : M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic Arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1.
F S Haddad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the learning curve associated with Robotic Arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a prospective cohort study
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2018Co-Authors: Babar Kayani, Sujith Konan, Jurek Rt Pietrzak, S S Huq, Jenni Tahmassebi, F S HaddadAbstract:Aims The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing Robotic-Arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. ...
Babar Kayani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the learning curve associated with Robotic Arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a prospective cohort study
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2018Co-Authors: Babar Kayani, Sujith Konan, Jurek Rt Pietrzak, S S Huq, Jenni Tahmassebi, F S HaddadAbstract:Aims The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing Robotic-Arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. ...
Alisdair Gilmour - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Robotic Arm assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty the 2 year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018Co-Authors: Alisdair Gilmour, Philip Rowe, Matthew Banger, Angus Maclean, Bryn Jones, Iona Donnelly, Mark BlythAbstract:Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis has potential benefits over total knee arthroplasty but UKA has a higher revision rate. Robotic-assisted UKA is increasingly common and offers more accurate implant positioning and limb alignment, lower early postoperative pain but evidence of functional outcome is lacking. The aim was to assess the clinical outcomes of a single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial, comparing Robotic-Arm-assisted UKA with conventional surgery. Methods: A total of 139 participants were recruited and underwent Robotic-Arm-assisted (fixed bearing) or conventional (mobile bearing) UKA. Fifty-eight patients in the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 54 in the manual group at 2 years. The main outcome measures were the Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Score and revision rate. Results: At 2 years, there were no significant differences for any of the outcome measures. Sub-group analysis (n = 35) of participants with a preoperative University of California Los Angeles Activity Scale >5 (more active) was performed. In this sub-group, the median Oxford Knee Score at 2 years was 46 (IQR 42.0-48.0) for Robotic-Arm-assisted and 41 (IQR 38.5-44.0) for the manual group (P = .036). The median American Knee Society Score was 193.5 (IQR 184.0-198.0) for the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 174.0 (IQR 166.0-188.5) for the manual group (P = .017). Survivorship was 100% in Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 96.3% in the manual group. Conclusion: Overall, participants achieved an outcome equivalent to the most widely implanted UKA in the United Kingdom. Sub-group analysis suggests that more active patients may benefit from Robotic-Arm-assisted surgery. Long term follow-up is required to evaluate differences in survivorship.
Bryn Jones - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Robotic Arm assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty the 2 year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018Co-Authors: Alisdair Gilmour, Philip Rowe, Matthew Banger, Angus Maclean, Bryn Jones, Iona Donnelly, Mark BlythAbstract:Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis has potential benefits over total knee arthroplasty but UKA has a higher revision rate. Robotic-assisted UKA is increasingly common and offers more accurate implant positioning and limb alignment, lower early postoperative pain but evidence of functional outcome is lacking. The aim was to assess the clinical outcomes of a single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial, comparing Robotic-Arm-assisted UKA with conventional surgery. Methods: A total of 139 participants were recruited and underwent Robotic-Arm-assisted (fixed bearing) or conventional (mobile bearing) UKA. Fifty-eight patients in the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 54 in the manual group at 2 years. The main outcome measures were the Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Score and revision rate. Results: At 2 years, there were no significant differences for any of the outcome measures. Sub-group analysis (n = 35) of participants with a preoperative University of California Los Angeles Activity Scale >5 (more active) was performed. In this sub-group, the median Oxford Knee Score at 2 years was 46 (IQR 42.0-48.0) for Robotic-Arm-assisted and 41 (IQR 38.5-44.0) for the manual group (P = .036). The median American Knee Society Score was 193.5 (IQR 184.0-198.0) for the Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 174.0 (IQR 166.0-188.5) for the manual group (P = .017). Survivorship was 100% in Robotic-Arm-assisted group and 96.3% in the manual group. Conclusion: Overall, participants achieved an outcome equivalent to the most widely implanted UKA in the United Kingdom. Sub-group analysis suggests that more active patients may benefit from Robotic-Arm-assisted surgery. Long term follow-up is required to evaluate differences in survivorship.
-
Robotic Arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial
Bone and Joint Research, 2017Co-Authors: Mark Blyth, I Anthony, Philip Rowe, Matthew Banger, Angus Maclean, Bryn JonesAbstract:Objectives This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing Robotic Arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the Robotic Arm-assisted group. Methods A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided Robotic Arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the Robotic Arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the Robotic Arm-assisted group had better AKSS (Robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (Robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving Robotic Arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of Robotic-Arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion Robotic Arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the Robotic Arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article : M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic Arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1.
