A quality analysis of robotic-assisted knee replacement surgery videos on Youtube

Abstract

Aim: Robotic technology has been used to decrease soft tissue dissection and improve postoperative rehabilitation in several areas and robotic-assisted knee replacement has gained popularity last decades. Youtube has an uncontrolled source, making it difficult to verify the correctness of its process. It is critical to assess what they include. This study aimed to assess the quality of the YouTube video content related to robotic-assisted knee replacement surgeries Material and Method: We conducted a search on YouTube using the keywords “robotic-assisted knee replacement”. The headings of the first 50 videos on YouTube were obtained and simultaneously evaluated by two orthopedic surgeons.. We analyzed the general features and categorized videos according to content. The videos were evaluated by using the DISCERN and JAMA scores. Results: 37 videos were included. Twenty-three videos contained total knee replacement surgery while fourteen consisted of unicondylar prosthesis system. The content of the videos included 51.4% (n=19) interviews, 16.2% (n=6) live surgery, 13.5% (n=5) patient testimonials, 8.1% (n=3) animation and presentation-lesson, and 2.7% (n=1) model81.1% of the videos were uploaded by hospital accounts. These were followed by health channels (8.1%), firms (5.4%), doctors (2.7%), and patients (2.7%) the average DISCERN score was 40.1±9.4 and the average JAMA score was 2.2±1 Conclusion: The quality of the information in videos on robotic-assisted knee replacement surgery is poor, YouTube is not currently an appropriate source of such information for patients and there appears to be a disproportionate amount of information focusing on robotic-assisted knee replacement surgery.

Keywords

• Internet
• YouTube
• Knee
• Replacement
• Robotic

References

1. Haddad FS. Evolving techniques: the need for better technology. Bone Joint J 2017; 99: 145–6.
2. Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Pierce TP, Mont MA. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015; 12: 727-35.
3. Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Onochie E, Al-Jabri T, Haddad FS. Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 611-7.
4. Farnan JM, Paro JA, Higa J, Edelson J, Arora VM. The YouTube generation: implications for medical professionalism. Perspect Biol Med 2008; 51: 517–24.
5. Ashraf B. Teaching the Google-eyed YouTube generation. Educ Train 2009; 51: 343–52.
6. Potomkova J, Mihal V, Schwarz D. Medical education for YouTube generation. In: Silva A, Pontes E, Guelfi A, Kofuji ST, editors. ELearning- Engineering. On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching. Rijeka: InTech; 2012. p. 157–176.
7. Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak-Oglu K, Bennett D, Tierney P, O’Keeffe GW. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 90–6.
8. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973; 33: 613–9.

9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–74.
10. Charnock D, Sheppard S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 105-11.
11. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA 1997; 2774: 1244-5.
12. Eysenbach G, Kohler C. What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the world wide web? qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the Internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 2003: 225-9.
13. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on health care and the physician-patient relationship: National U.S. Survey among 1050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003; 5: e17.
14. Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz KD, et al. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 1995.
15. MacLeod MG, Hoppe DJ, Simunovic N, et al. YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy 2015; 31: 136.
16. Wong M, Desai B, Bautista M, Kwon O, Kolodychuk N, Chimento G. YouTube is a poor source of patient information for knee arthroplasty and knee osteoarthritis. Arthroplast Today 2018; 5: 78-82.
17. Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Rotator Cuff Tears. Cureus 2020; 12: e6852.
18. Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, et al. Online curves: a quality analysis of scoliosis videos on youtube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40: 1857.
19. Jones M, Wiberg A. Evaluating youtube as a source of patient information on dupuytren’s disease. World J Plast Surg 2017; 6: 396
20. Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A quality analysis of disc herniation videos on YouTube . World Neurosurg 2019; 1878: 875030246-3
21. Ovenden CD, Brooks FM. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion YouTube videos as a source of patient education. Asian Spine J 2018; 12: 987-91
22. Kunze KN, Cohn MR, Wakefield C, et al. YouTube as a Source of Information About the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Content-Quality and Reliability Analysis. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2019; 1: e109-14.
23. Kumar N, Pandey A, Venkatraman A, Garg N. Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension? J Am Soc Hypertens 2014; 8: 481-90.
24. Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, Kumar N. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology 2015; 20: 315-20.
25. Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 14: 4066-70.
26. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43: E1334-9.
27. Murugiah K, Vallakati A, Rajput K, Sood A, Challa NR. YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2011; 82: 332-4.