Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality.Aims
Methods
It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis.Aims
Methods
A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery. A total of 11 databases were examined using the COre, Standard, Ideal (COSI) protocol. Bibliographic searches (no chronological or linguistic restriction) were conducted using, among other methods, the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) template. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for flow diagram and checklist. Final reading of the complete texts was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. Classification of papers was completed within five levels of evidence (LE).Aims
Methods
