Day-case knee and hip replacement, in which patients are discharged on the day of surgery, has been gaining popularity during the last two decades, and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review presents the evidence comparing day-case to inpatient-stay surgery. A systematic literature search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature databases to include all studies which compare day-case with inpatient knee and hip replacement. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate using a random effects model. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42023392811).Aims
Methods
The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA.Aims
Methods
The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence.Aims
Methods
