A partial knee replacement is surgery to replace either the inside (medial) or outside (lateral) parts of the knee. Partial knee replacement surgery removes damaged tissue and bone in the knee joint and replaces the area with a man-made implant. The procedure is known as unicompartmental knee arthroscopy (UKA).
What happens when a company that sells robotically-assisted UKAs makes an assertion like this?
Our comprehensive research program provides evidence of the clinical and functional value of our robotic arm system for placement of corresponding implants.
What if the company publishes a chart that compares two-year survivorship rates, with an "author conclusion" that says:
Improved accuracy of implant placement achieved with robotic arm assisted UKA leads to superior implant survivorship and patient satisfaction.
Well, if there is someone knowledgeable watching, you get an article entitled "Cherry Picking Clinical Nuggets," disputing the finding and the evidence behind it.
Implant survivorship at two-years is essentially, if not totally, meaningless. Moreover, the data is inconsistent with comparable data sets and reflects outcomes from the most experienced MAKOplasty surgeons in the field.
The article continues by citing a published clinical review:
The authors reviewed clinical and radiographic data for matched cohorts who received robotic-arm assisted UKA or standard instrumentation UKA. Among the findings cited in the abstract were the following:
Does this sound familiar?
What happens to a company's stock price when a report like this comes out?
What happens when a company that sells robotically-assisted UKAs makes an assertion like this?
Our comprehensive research program provides evidence of the clinical and functional value of our robotic arm system for placement of corresponding implants.
What if the company publishes a chart that compares two-year survivorship rates, with an "author conclusion" that says:
Improved accuracy of implant placement achieved with robotic arm assisted UKA leads to superior implant survivorship and patient satisfaction.
Well, if there is someone knowledgeable watching, you get an article entitled "Cherry Picking Clinical Nuggets," disputing the finding and the evidence behind it.
Implant survivorship at two-years is essentially, if not totally, meaningless. Moreover, the data is inconsistent with comparable data sets and reflects outcomes from the most experienced MAKOplasty surgeons in the field.
The article continues by citing a published clinical review:
The authors reviewed clinical and radiographic data for matched cohorts who received robotic-arm assisted UKA or standard instrumentation UKA. Among the findings cited in the abstract were the following:
- Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group.
- There were very few differences between groups in postoperative clinical measures.
- A greater number of robotic group patients reported continued medial-sided knee pain.
Does this sound familiar?
What happens to a company's stock price when a report like this comes out?