scholarly journals Assessing physical access to healthy food across United Kingdom: A systematic review of measures and findings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elzbieta Titis ◽  
Rob Procter ◽  
Lukasz Walasek
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Healthy Food ◽  
Physical Access

Business outcomes of healthy food service initiatives in schools: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney P. Thorpe ◽  
Tara Boelsen‐Robinson ◽  
Adrian J. Cameron ◽  
Miranda R. Blake
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Healthy Food ◽  
Business Outcomes

scholarly journals A qualitative systematic review of factors influencing parents’ vaccination decision-making in the United Kingdom

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 603-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice S. Forster ◽  
Lauren Rockliffe ◽  
Amanda J. Chorley ◽  
Laura A.V. Marlow ◽  
Helen Bedford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
Vaccination Decision

scholarly journals Sleep characteristics across the lifespan in 1.1 million people from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desana Kocevska ◽  
Thom S. Lysen ◽  
Aafje Dotinga ◽  
M. Elisabeth Koopman-Verhoeff ◽  
Maartje P. C. M. Luijk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Meta Analysis

A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (7) ◽  
pp. 838-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. G. Robinson ◽  
N. D. Clement ◽  
D. Hamilton ◽  
M. J. G. Blyth ◽  
F. S. Haddad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Implant Design ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Implant Positioning ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee

AimsRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) promises accurate implant placement with the potential of improved survival and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the current evidence for robotic-assisted UKA and describe the outcome in terms of implant positioning, range of movement (ROM), function and survival, and the types of robot and implants that are currently used.Materials and MethodsA search of PubMed and Medline was performed in October 2018 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee”, and “surgery”. The criteria for inclusion was any study describing the use of robotic UKA and reporting implant positioning, ROM, function, and survival for clinical, cadaveric, or dry bone studies.ResultsA total of 528 articles were initially identified from the databases and reference lists. Following full text screening, 38 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. In all, 20 studies reported on implant positioning, 18 on functional outcomes, 16 on survivorship, and six on ROM. The Mako (Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey) robot was used in 32 studies (84%), the BlueBelt Navio (Blue Belt Technologies, Plymouth, Minnesota) in three (8%), the Sculptor RGA (Stanmore Implants, Borehamwood United Kingdom) in two (5%), and the Acrobot (The Acrobot Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom) in one study (3%). The most commonly used implant was the Restoris MCK (Stryker). Nine studies (24%) did not report the implant that was used. The pooled survivorship at six years follow-up was 96%. However, when assessing survival according to implant design, survivorship of an inlay (all-polyethylene) tibial implant was 89%, whereas that of an onlay (metal-backed) implant was 97% at six years (odds ratio 3.66, 95% confidence interval 20.7 to 6.46, p < 0.001).ConclusionThere is little description of the choice of implant when reporting robotic-assisted UKA, which is essential when assessing survivorship, in the literature. Implant positioning with robotic-assisted UKA is more accurate and more reproducible than that performed manually and may offer better functional outcomes, but whether this translates into improved implant survival in the mid- to longer-term remains to be seen. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:838–847.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document