ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a common surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Partial knee arthroplasty is also a treatment option for patients with arthritis present in only one or two knee compartments. Partial knee arthroplasty can preserve the natural knee biomechanics, but these replacements may not last as long as total knee replacements. Robotic-assisted orthopedic techniques can help facilitate partial knee replacements, increasing accuracy and precision. This trial will investigate the feasibility and assess clinical outcomes for a larger definitive trial. METHODS: This is a protocol for an ongoing parallel randomized pilot trial of 64 patients with uni- or bicompartmental knee arthritis. Patients are randomized to either receive robot-assisted partial knee arthroplasty or manual total knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome of this pilot is investigating the feasibility of a larger trial. Secondary (clinical) outcomes include joint awareness, return to activities, knee function, patient global impression of change, persistent post-surgical pain, re-operations, resource utilization and cost-effectiveness, health-related quality of life, radiographic alignment, knee kinematics during walking gait, and complications up to 24 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The RoboKnees pilot study is the first step in determining the outcome of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. Conclusions from this study will be used to design future large-scale trials. This study will inform surgeons about the potential benefits of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT04378049) on 4 May 2020, before the first patient was randomized.
ABSTRACT
Background: Bayesian methods are being used more frequently in orthopaedics. To advance the use and transparent reporting of Bayesian studies, reporting guidelines have been recommended. There is currently little known about the use or applications of Bayesian analysis in orthopedics including adherence to recommended reporting guidelines. The objective is to investigate the reporting of Bayesian analysis in orthopedic surgery studies; specifically, to evaluate if these papers adhere to reporting guidelines. Methods: We searched PUBMED to December 2nd, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies and full-text screening. We included studies that focused on one or more orthopaedic surgical interventions and used Bayesian methods. Results: After full-text review, 100 articles were included. The most frequent study designs were meta-analysis or network meta-analysis (56%, 95% CI 46-65) and cohort studies (25%, 95% CI 18-34). Joint replacement was the most common subspecialty (33%, 95% CI 25-43). We found that studies infrequently reported key concepts in Bayesian analysis including, specifying the prior distribution (37-39%), justifying the prior distribution (18%), the sensitivity to different priors (7-8%), and the statistical model used (22%). In contrast, general methodological items on the checklists were largely well reported. Conclusions: There is an opportunity to improve reporting quality and transparency of orthopaedic studies using Bayesian analysis by encouraging adherence to reporting guidelines such as ROBUST, JASP, and BayesWatch. There is an opportunity to better report prior distributions, sensitivity analyses, and the statistical models used.
ABSTRACT
Background: Outpatient shoulder arthroplasty is growing in popularity as a cost-effective and potentially equally safe alternative to inpatient arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to investigate literature relating to outpatient shoulder arthroplasty, looking at clinical outcomes, complications, readmission, and cost compared to inpatient arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 6 April 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using MINORS and GRADE criteria. Results: We included 17 studies, with 11 included in meta-analyses and 6 in narrative review. A meta-analysis of hospital readmissions demonstrated no statistically significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts (OR = 0.89, p = 0.49). Pooled post-operative complications identified decreased complications in those undergoing outpatient surgery (OR = 0.70, p = 0.02). Considerable cost saving of between $3614 and $53,202 (19.7-69.9%) per patient were present in the outpatient setting. Overall study quality was low and presented a serious risk of bias. Discussion: Shoulder arthroplasty in the outpatient setting appears to be as safe as shoulder arthroplasty in the inpatient setting, with a significant reduction in cost. However, this is based on low quality evidence and high risk of bias suggests further research is needed to substantiate these findings.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the literature published over the past 5 years related to the management of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability. RECENT FINDINGS: During recent years, there has been a focus on patients at high risk for failure following soft tissue anterior stabilization (Bankart repair). A growing body of evidence suggests that anterior capsulolabral repair is insufficient in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss with an off-track Hill Sachs lesion. In such cases, the addition of a remplissage procedure to a Bankart repair or a bone-block augmentation to the glenoid (Latarjet, for example) is often advocated to decrease the risk of recurrent instability. Recent studies have also evaluated the role of alternative bone-block procedures in comparison to the Latarjet, outcomes with arthroscopic and open techniques as well as various fixation methods and radiological outcomes (bone graft resorption, glenohumeral osteoarthritis). Advances in our understanding of subcritical glenoid bone loss and the glenoid track concept have significantly impacted clinical decision making and treatment selection. The development of arthroscopic techniques has allowed for minimally invasive and safe arthroscopic bone-block procedures as an alternative to open procedures. Further research related to free bone-block procedures will inform long-term outcomes between these procedures and the gold standard Latarjet. Additionally, high-quality evidence is lacking to identify the ideal treatment for patients with glenoid subcritical glenoid bone defect. Variability in outcome reporting suggests the need to standardize outcome measures for future instability trials.
