FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2982563021> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2982563021 endingPage "e105" @default.
• W2982563021 startingPage "e105" @default.
• W2982563021 abstract "Commentary While total hip replacement has been referred to as the “operation of the century,”1 with almost universally outstanding clinical outcomes, approximately 20% of patients after total knee replacement are somewhat dissatisfied2. The disparity in clinical outcomes between hip and knee replacement, seemingly intransigent over the last 2 decades3, has been the impetus for intense innovation on several fronts. Manufacturers have developed numerous implant designs with improved fidelity of preserving native knee anatomy and kinematics. Individualized, patient-specific implants and instruments that are based on preoperative axial imaging have come to market4. Surgical technique has evolved to minimize soft-tissue disruption, improve osseous as well as soft-tissue balancing, and consider both kinematic and mechanical alignment. Beyond implants and techniques, computer-assisted surgery has emerged as a major opportunity to improve the alignment of implanted components and, hopefully, clinical outcomes as a corollary. Computer-assisted surgery essentially uses specialized instruments and software to help guide the surgeon during component implantation. There are several types of navigation, including image-based navigation (in which preoperative axial images are coupled with intraoperative landmarks) or imageless navigation (in which multiple landmarks are fit to a virtual knee model using surface registration). Recent ameliorations of computer-assisted surgery include the introduction of portable, accelerometer-based navigation5 as well as robotics with haptic assistance to guide bone preparation6,7. No matter the type of computer-assisted surgery used, the prevailing evidence demonstrates superior implant alignment compared with conventionally instrumented knee replacements8. Computer-assisted surgery limits the number of outliers and therefore improves the reproducibility of accurate component placement. The elimination of intramedullary referencing also mitigates fat emboli and is particularly useful in the presence of extra-articular deformity or hardware that precludes the use of intramedullary instrumentation. Despite more reproducible component alignment with computer-assisted surgery, few studies have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes over conventional instrumentation. In a study using follow-up data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, de Steiger et al. reported slightly fewer revisions in computer-assisted knee replacements at the 9-year follow-up in patients who were <65 years old9. Nonetheless, studies clearly demonstrating improved implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes have not been forthcoming8. The added cost of computer-assisted surgery, increased setup complexity, increased operative time, and potential pin-site complications must also be considered. Muddling the subject even more is the controversy surrounding alignment altogether. Radiographic assessment of healthy, nonarthritic knees has demonstrated variations in native mechanical alignment, with a substantial portion of individuals who have several degrees of “constitutional varus.”10 Furthermore, in a series of 398 total knee replacements performed at the Mayo Clinic, supposedly malaligned knees (a mean mechanical axis [and standard deviation] of >0° ± 3°) did not have an increased risk of aseptic loosening or revision at 15 years11. We may therefore need to further elucidate and define the ideal target alignment of total knee replacement before potentially reaping the benefits of computer-assisted surgery. In the present article, the authors report the short-term clinical outcomes of a well-designed, multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial comparing computer-assisted with conventionally instrumented total knee replacements. The study randomized 190 patients, and 167 of them completed the final evaluation and were included in the analysis. Comparison of the groups with respect to the 5 subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2 years demonstrated significantly larger improvements in the computer-assisted group for 2 subscales (symptoms, and sports and recreation). The authors also used the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria to trichotomize Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores into high responders, moderate responders, and nonresponders. The computer-assisted group had significantly more high responders than the conventionally instrumented group. In comparison with previously reported randomized trials12, the present study demonstrated tangible improvements in several functional outcome measures in patients receiving computer-assisted knee replacements. These early clinical results are encouraging and possibly lend credence to the adoption of computer-assisted knee replacement. Nonetheless, it is important to note that significant improvements in the mean difference between the groups were demonstrated for only a subset of the KOOS and WOMAC scores, while the remaining measures and subsets were similar. Furthermore, the segregation of WOMAC scores into 3 binary responses may amplify the true clinical effect of the outcome. The authors engaged 2 pertinent questions in their subgroup analysis. First, they compared patients with postoperative mechanical malalignment (>0° ± 3°) and those with well-aligned knees (<3° of varus or valgus). Interestingly, there was no difference in functional outcomes between these 2 groups, which undermines the concept that neutral anatomic alignment (facilitated by computer-assisted surgery) leads to gains in functional outcomes. Second, the authors looked at patients who had constitutional varus before surgery. Within this subgroup of 82 patients, there were no significant differences in the postoperative KOOS scores between the 60 knees that were left in some varus alignment and the 22 knees that had corrected to neutral alignment. While both analyses may have been underpowered, they certainly contribute to the controversy of what alignment we should be targeting with knee replacement surgery. The present article describes encouraging early functional results with the use of computer-assisted total knee replacement. Nonetheless, it is difficult to attribute these gains solely to improved mechanical alignment. Further studies are needed to better understand the ideal alignment following knee replacement surgery. The use of computer-assisted surgery to achieve such a target might then more easily translate into beneficial clinical outcomes." @default.
• W2982563021 created "2019-11-08" @default.
• W2982563021 creator A5031608576 @default.
• W2982563021 creator A5076176546 @default.
• W2982563021 date "2018-08-01" @default.
• W2982563021 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2982563021 title "Computer-Assisted Surgery for Total Knee Replacement: Navigating Toward Improved Outcomes" @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2020842346 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2025836730 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2084559676 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2167245867 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2310960062 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2320768718 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2337163526 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W2736637192 @default.
• W2982563021 cites W937835779 @default.
• W2982563021 doi "https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.18.00352" @default.
• W2982563021 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063603" @default.
• W2982563021 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2982563021 type Work @default.
• W2982563021 sameAs 2982563021 @default.
• W2982563021 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2982563021 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2982563021 hasAuthorship W2982563021A5031608576 @default.
• W2982563021 hasAuthorship W2982563021A5076176546 @default.
• W2982563021 hasBestOaLocation W29825630211 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C2775901119 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C2778104916 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C34413123 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C39920418 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C68312169 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C74650414 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConcept C90509273 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C121332964 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C141071460 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C154945302 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C19527891 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C2775901119 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C2778104916 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C2781411149 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C34413123 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C39920418 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C41008148 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C68312169 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C71924100 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C74650414 @default.
• W2982563021 hasConceptScore W2982563021C90509273 @default.
• W2982563021 hasIssue "15" @default.
• W2982563021 hasLocation W29825630211 @default.
• W2982563021 hasLocation W29825630212 @default.
• W2982563021 hasLocation W29825630213 @default.
• W2982563021 hasOpenAccess W2982563021 @default.
• W2982563021 hasPrimaryLocation W29825630211 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2039625446 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2062709693 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W214433981 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2892564203 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W3123899600 @default.
• W2982563021 hasRelatedWork W4293659631 @default.
• W2982563021 hasVolume "100" @default.
• W2982563021 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2982563021 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2982563021 magId "2982563021" @default.
• W2982563021 workType "article" @default.