Background: Recent studies have suggested clinical superiority with robotic-assisted arthroplasty compared to traditional techniques. However, concerns exist regarding the author's financial conflicts of interest (COI), which may influence research outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether COI relating to robotic-assisted arthroplasty influences the results of published outcomes following total hip (THA), total knee (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all studies evaluating the use of robotics in THA, TKA, and UKA. An author's financial COI was identified if they reported a relevant disclosure through the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or within the study article. We then queried the Open Payments website to record all payments made from a robotic company in the year prior to publication. Each study was categorized as either favoring robotics (n = 42), neutral (n = 10), or favoring traditional techniques (n = 2). We then compared the number of conflicted authors, journal impact factor, level of evidence, and mean annual industry payment to each author.
Results: Of the 54 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 49 (91%) had an author financial COI. Conflicted studies were more likely to report favorable results of robotics than nonconflicted studies. When compared to studies favoring conventional techniques, those demonstrating favorable robotics outcomes had a higher number of conflicted authors and a higher mean industry payment per author. There was no difference in the level of evidence or journal impact factor.
Discussion: Nearly all studies comparing robotic THA, TKA, and UKA to conventional techniques involve financially conflicted authors. Further studies without COI may provide unbiased results.
Keywords: conflicts of interest; outcomes; robotic-assisted; total hip arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasty; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.