4.7 Article

Initial Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty in a Dedicated Orthopedics Center

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216950

关键词

robotic-assisted surgery; total knee arthroplasty; learning curve; ROSA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the learning curve for robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) and compared the operative times and complications rate with manual TKA. The results showed that experienced surgeons can quickly adapt to RA-TKA without significant complications.
Background and objectives: Our study aimed to assess the learning curve for robot-assisted (RA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in our hospital, compare operative times between RA-TKAs and manual TKAs, and assess the early complications rate between the two approaches. Methods: We included 39 patients who underwent RA-TKA and 45 control patients subjected to manual TKA in the same period and operated on by the same surgical staff. We collected demographic and patient-related data to assess potential differences between the two groups. Results: No statistical differences were recorded in regard to age, BMI, sex, Kellgren-Lawrence classification, or limb alignment between patients undergoing RA-TKA and manual TKA, respectively. Three surgeons transitioned from the learning to the proficiency phase in our study after a number of 6, 4, and 3 cases, respectively. The overall operative time for the learning phase was 111.54 +/- 20.45 min, significantly longer compared to the average of 86.43 +/- 19.09 min in the proficiency phase (p = 0.0154) and 80.56 +/- 17.03 min for manual TKAs (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was recorded between the global operative time for the proficiency phase TKAs versus the controls. No major complications were recorded in either RA-TKA or manual TKA groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest that experienced surgeons may adopt RA-TKA using this platform and quickly adapt without significant complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据