Background: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty (rUKA) is gradually gaining more popularity than its conventional counterpart (cUKA). Current studies are highly heterogenic in terms of methodology and the reported results; therefore, establishing the optimal recommendation for patients becomes less straightforward. For this reason, this meta-analysis aims to provide an up-to-date evidence-based analysis on current evidence regarding clinical outcomes and complication rates following rUKA and cUKA. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched, PubMed via MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. The relevant inclusion criteria were as follows: comparative clinical studies in which medial rUKA was compared to medial cUKA (prospective or retrospective designs), (2) human studies, (3) meta-analyses for cross-referencing, and (4) English language. The relevant extracted data were patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion, and complications. A random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The results include mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Results: rUKA showed a higher overall FJS-12 score compared to cUKA, with MD = 6.02 (95%CI: −0.07 to 12.1), p = 0.05. At 6 months postoperatively, the MD increased to 10.31 (95%CI: 5.14 to 15.49), p < 0.01. At a minimum 36-month follow-up, cUKA had a higher all-cause revision rate, with OR = 3.31 (95%CI: 1.25 to 8.8), p = 0.02, and at a minimum 60-month follow-up, a higher aseptic loosening rate, with OR = 3.86 (95%CI: 1.51 to 9.91), p < 0.01, compared to rUKA. Conclusions: rUKA provides better FJS-12 results compared to cUKA, as well as lower all-cause revision and aseptic loosening rates at 36- and 60-month follow-up, respectively. However, long-term follow-up is still pending.

Background and Objectives: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) is a common surgical procedure, with outcomes that are influenced by the instruments used in the operation. This meta-analysis aimed to compare “cold cutting” or “traditional” techniques and monopolar or bipolar electrocautery. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of five databases was conducted, with only studies of adult patients undergoing MRM in clearly defined groups selected. Data from 12 RCTs and 3 cohort studies summarizing 1372 participants was extracted and then synthesized using random-effects models. Risk of Bias was assessed for each of the included studies using the RoB-2 or ROBINS-I tool. Results: Scalpel or scissor use in dissection and flap raising was associated with a significantly lower risk of seroma formation (LogOR = −0.90, 95% CI: −1.26 to −0.54, p < 0.01). Conversely, electrocautery demonstrated advantages including reduced operative time (MD = −13.14 min, 95% CI: −19.58 to −6.70, p < 0.01) and decreased intraoperative blood loss (MD = −171.60 mL, 95% CI: −259.35 to −84.41, p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed in total drain output (MD = −16.45 mL, 95% CI: −170.96 to 138.06, p = 0.83) or duration of drainage (MD = 0.41 days, 95% CI: −0.41 to 1.23, p = 0.32). Similarly, rates of infection, ecchymosis, and flap necrosis did not differ significantly between techniques. Conclusions: Electrocautery should be employed in patients who benefit from a shorter operative time and lower blood loss, while patients in better clinical condition should benefit from cold cutting techniques. Data on patient-reported outcomes and wound cytokine levels were sparse and inconsistent. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD420251059886).

Background and Objectives: The role of tourniquet use in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy remains debatable. While traditionally adopted to enhance visualization and reduce intraoperative bleeding, concerns were raised regarding its impact on postoperative outcomes and potential adverse effects, such as muscle damage or delayed recovery. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the use of a tourniquet offers advantages in terms of surgical efficiency, patient recovery and complication rates in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42025644740). A comprehensive literature search was performed in 5 databases including studies from the past 20 years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tourniquet-assisted versus non-tourniquet procedures in adolescent and adult patients undergoing isolated arthroscopic partial meniscectomy matched our inclusion criteria and the analysis was performed on those. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Data were synthesized either quantitatively or narratively, depending on the availability of statistical details. Results: Three RCTs with a total of 243 patients met the inclusion criteria. Operative time was shorter in tourniquet-assisted procedures in one study (p = 0.001), though comparable outcomes were achieved in non-tourniquet groups when pharmacological agents such as intra-articular adrenaline were used. No significant differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative pain (p = 0.22, p = 0.43), knee effusion (p = 0.96), range of motion (p = 0.91, p = 0.96), or time to return to functional activities (p = 0.9, p = 0.34, p = 0.23). Muscle damage, assessed by serum creatine phosphokinase CPK levels, did not differ between groups (p = 0.3, p = 0.093, p = 0.079). Intraoperative visibility and surgeon satisfaction rated higher in tourniquet groups (p = 0.002), although this was subjective and reported variably. No major tourniquet-related complications were recorded. Conclusions: The routine use of a tourniquet in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides limited intraoperative advantages and does not improve postoperative outcomes. Current evidence supports a selective rather than routine use of tourniquets, especially when pharmacological alternatives are available. Further high-quality studies are needed to define standardized protocols and assess long-term outcomes.