This study compared tibial baseplate alignment (TBA) between robotic-arm-assisted (RAA) and conventional (CONV) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). We hypothesized that RAA would increase the percentage of implants within a predetermined safe zone (SZ). We identified 177 CONV and 87 RAA UKAs through our center's patient registry. Two individuals reviewed postoperative knee radiographs and determined TBA. Coronal baseplate positioning was more accurate (i.e., within the SZ) for RAA (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0. 0001). Conversely, sagittal alignment was more accurate for CONV (4.9° ± 2.8° vs. 2.4° ± 1.6°, p < 0.0001). RAA was more precise in both planes (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the percentage of implants within the SZ between the two groups (p = 1.0).

No abstract

Within a matter of 48 hours, the promotion of the article entitled "Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons," aptly demonstrated the power of social media and the dangers of unconscious bias as it spread across Twitter with the #MedBikini tag. In response, vascular surgeons from around the world have come together in a call to action to address the article and highlight the misogynistic, racist, and oppressive issues facing young surgeons today. We, as female vascular surgery trainees, would like to make our own call to action. The publication of this article (now appropriately retracted) has encouraged important dialogue among female vascular surgeons, male colleagues who support #HeforShe initiatives, other disadvantaged and marginalized groups in surgery, and the future generation of surgeons who will pave the path forward. We have converged to discuss the current climate of our specialty and have determined that now is an opportunity for change.It is essential that we pursue ethics, as well as excellence, in surgical practice and research. The inherent conscious and unconscious biases, poor study design, and unethical data collection methods within the article have demonstrated a critical flaw within the editorial process of the Journal of Vascular Surgery (JVS). We are disappointed to find ourselves represented by the article. The publication was both tone deaf toward, and discriminatory against, us as professionals, trainees, and women. As vascular surgeons, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our call to action for the JVS includes the following:1. Re-examine the review process for publication of ethical abstracts from regional and national meetings and manuscripts, and provide training in ethical research for all editors and reviewers.