Dataset Information

Computer navigation-assisted versus minimally invasive TKA: benefits and drawbacks.

ABSTRACT: UNLABELLED: Computer-navigated and minimally invasive TKAs are emerging technologies that have distinct strengths and weaknesses. We compared duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, Knee Society scores, radiographic alignments, and complications in two unselected groups of 81 consecutive knees that underwent TKA using either a minimally invasive approach or computer navigation. The two groups were operated on by two different surgeons over differing timeframes. The mean surgical time was longer in the navigated group by 63 minutes. The Knee Society scores and lengths of hospitalization of the two groups were similar. The postoperative component alignments of the two groups were similar; the mean femoral valgus and tibial varus angles of the navigation group changed from 96 degrees and 88 degrees preoperatively to 95 degrees and 89 degrees postoperatively, respectively, and in the minimally invasive group, the mean femoral valgus angles and tibial varus angles changed from 97 degrees and 88 degrees preoperatively to 95 degrees and 89 degrees postoperatively, respectively. There were 11 major and three minor complications in the navigation group, including one revision, two femoral shaft fractures, four reoperations for knee stiffness, and four instances of bleeding from tracker sites. We believe the higher incidence of complications in addition to the longer operative time in the navigated group may outweigh any potential radiographic benefits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Bonutti PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2565050 | biostudies-other | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Project description:Computer assisted surgery was pioneered in early 1990s. The first computer assisted surgery (CAS) total knee replacement with an imageless system was carried out in 1997. In the past 25 years, CAS has progressed from experimental in vitro studies to established in vivo surgical procedures.A comprehensive body of evidence establishing the advantages of computer assisted surgery in knee and hip arthroplasty is available. Established benefits have been demonstrated including its role as an excellent research tool. Its advantages include dynamic pre-operative and per-operative assessment, increased accuracy in correction of deformities, kinematics and mechanical axis, a better alignment of components, better survival rates of prostheses and a better functional outcome. Adoption of computer navigation in the hip arthroplasty is still at an early stage compared to knee arthroplasty, though the results are well documented. Evidence suggests improved accuracy in acetabular orientation, positioning, hip offset and leg length correction.Among the orthopaedic surgeons, navigated knee arthroplasty is gaining popularity though slowly. The uptake rates vary from country to country. The Australian joint registry data shows increased navigated knee arthroplasty from 2.4% in 2003 to 28.6% in 2015 and decreased revision rates with navigated knee arthroplasty in comparison with traditional instrumented knee arthroplasty in patient cohort under the age of 55 years.Any new technology has a learning curve and with practice the navigation assisted knee and hip arthroplasty becomes easy. We have actively followed the evidence of CAS in orthopaedics and have successfully adopted it in our routine practice over the last decades. Despite the cautious inertia of orthopaedic surgeons to embrace CAS more readily; we are certain that computer technology has a pivotal role in lower limb arthroplasty. It will evolve to become a standard practice in the future in various forms like navigation or robotics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Currently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). METHODS:This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n?=?180) or MIE (n?=?180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12?months in the first two years, and then every 6?months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life. DISCUSSION:This is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5?years from the time when the last patient was enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Computer navigation-assisted versus minimally invasive TKA: benefits and drawbacks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets