Skip to main content

A progressive scholarly acceptance analysis of robot-assisted arthroplasty: a review of the literature and prediction of future research trends

Journal of Robotic Surgery volume 15, pages 813–819 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Robot-assisted arthroplasty (RAA) is increasingly practised in orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of all published primary research into RAA and to apply the Progressive Scholarly Acceptance (PSA) model to evaluate its acceptance as an orthopaedic surgical technique. A literature search was performed that included all peer-reviewed, primary, English language publications on RAA from its introduction in 1992 up to 2019. RAA was defined as robot-assisted hip or knee arthroplasty. A bibliometric analysis was performed to categorise articles by type of study and level of evidence. Studies were also categorised as initial investigations (II) or refining studies (RS). A PSA analysis was performed, with the end-point being defined as the point in time when the number of RS exceeded the number of II. Of the 199 studies originating from 19 countries and 101 institutions, only 16 (8.04%) were randomised-controlled trials. Fifty-one percent of studies had been published since 2015. Using PSA analysis, 161 (80.9%) studies were categorised as II and 38 (19.1%) were categorised as RS. This demonstrates that RAA has not yet reached the point of scholarly acceptance. Scholarly acceptance of RAA as an orthopaedic surgical technique has yet to be reached. However, there has been an exponential increase in the number of publications on RAA in the last 5 years, reflecting renewed interest this technique. We predict that, for the next 5 years, RAA will remain in the experimental phase due to the rapid development of new technology in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Availability of data and materials

Data can be made available on request.

References

  1. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, Musits B, Taylor RH, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Hanson W (1992) Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 285:57–66

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jacofsky DJ, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplast 31(10):2353–2363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jeon S-W, Kim K-I, Song SJ (2019) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty does not improve long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Arthroplast 34(8):1656–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho K-J, Seon J-K, Jang W-Y, Park C-G, Song E-K (2019) Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years. Int Orthop 43(6):1345–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Riskin JD, Longaker TM, Gertner MM, Krummel MT (2006) Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 244(5):686–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schnurman Z, Kondziolka D (2016a) Evaluating innovation. Part 1: the concept of progressive scholarly acceptance. J Neurosurg 124(1):207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cundy T, Harley S, Marcus H, Hughes-Hallett A, Khurana S (2018) Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis. J Robot Surg 12(1):109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schnurman Z, Kondziolka D (2016b) Evaluating innovation. Part 2: development in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 124(1):212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653.

  10. Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Pierce TP, Jauregui JJ, Mont MA (2016) Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty, vol 13. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB (2018) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplast 33(7):1994–2001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nawabi DH, Conditt MA, Ranawat AS, Dunbar NJ, Jones J, Banks S, Padgett DE (2013) Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 227(3):302–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lonner JH (2009) Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead, NJ) 38(2 Suppl):3

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA, Engh GA (2010) Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25(5):735–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M (2016) Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg-Am 98(8):627–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, Maclean A, Jones B (2017) Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 6(11):631–639

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Hampp EL, Scholl LY, Prieto M, Chang T-C, Abbasi A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Otto J, Jacofsky DJ, Mont MA (2017) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. Surg Technol Int 30:441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Sultan AA, Chughtai M, Molloy RM, Mont MA (2018) Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33(7):2002–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW (2016) Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplast 31(4):759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was self-funded and no additional funding was provided by third parties.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St John of God Midland Public Hospital, 1 Clayton Street, Midland, WA, 6056, Australia

    Dylan Misso, John Kelly & Gavin Clark

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Perth Children’s Hospital, 15 Hospital Avenue, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia

    Emily Zhen

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sligo University Hospital, The Mall, Rathquarter, Sligo, F91 H684, Ireland

    John Kelly

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, 12 Salvado Road, Subiaco, WA, 6008, Australia

    Dermot Collopy & Gavin Clark

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St John of God Murdoch Hospital, 100 Murdoch Drive, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

    Dermot Collopy

  6. Perth Hip and Knee Clinic, Suite 1/1, Wexford Street, Subiaco, WA, 6008, Australia

    Dermot Collopy & Gavin Clark

Authors
  1. Dylan Misso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Zhen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dermot Collopy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gavin Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. DM was involved in study design, data collection and analysis, and drafting and editing of the manuscript. Dr. EZ analysed data and edited the manuscript. Dr. JK and Dr. DC were involved in study design, supervision, and approval of the manuscript. Dr. GC was involved in study design and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dylan Misso.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Misso and Dr. Zhen declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Kelly received fellowship funding from Stryker Orthopaedics. Dr. Clark and Dr. Collopy are Stryker paid consultants, have given paid presentations, and receive fellowship and research funding from Stryker Orthopaedics.

Ethical approval

Due to the bibliographic nature of this study, ethics approval has not been sought. This study was conducted in agreement with institutional ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Misso, D., Zhen, E., Kelly, J. et al. A progressive scholarly acceptance analysis of robot-assisted arthroplasty: a review of the literature and prediction of future research trends. J Robotic Surg 15, 813–819 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01173-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01173-5

Keywords

  • Robot-assisted arthroplasty
  • Total hip arthroplasty
  • Total knee arthroplasty
  • Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
  • Progressive scholarly acceptance
  • Literature review