ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021
Is robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? A case control study.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early clinical, radiological, and safety outcomes of NAVIO-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-Assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty restores native joint line height and reduces alignment outliers.International orthopaedics · 2025Pooled it
- Mid- to long-term complications and revision rates of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Correlation of revision rate of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty registers.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Pooled it
- MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effect of Continuous Subcutaneous Injection of Insulin Analogues in Pregnant Women with Diabetes Mellitus Complicated with Ketoacidosis.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Trial
- Robotic Assisted Versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- Reduced postoperative inflammation and blood loss after robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental compared with total knee arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- [Comparison of early effectiveness and safety between domestic robot-assisted and conventional simultaneous unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for bilateral anteromedial compartment osteoarthritis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- NATON robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty achieves superior radiological alignment and comparable one-year functional outcomes to conventional surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of revision causes between robotic-assisted and conventional manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Review
- Image-Based Robotic Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Results in Fewer Radiologic Outliers with No Impact on Revision Rates Compared to Imageless Systems: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Is Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Associated With Decreased Revision Rates? An Updated Matched Cohort Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Robotic Assistance in Simultaneous Bilateral Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 126 Knees Demonstrating Enhanced Radiographic Accuracy and Comparable Safety to Conventional Methods.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Different intraoperative joint laxity patterns do not impact clinical outcomes in robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee replacement with 1-to-1 surface reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted knee replacement surgery & infection: A historical foundation, systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Analysis of Gait Ability and Patient Reported Outcome Measurements after Robotic-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis of the Knee with Windswept Deformity.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2023Article
- Similar survivorship at the 5-year follow-up comparing robotic-assisted and conventional lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe hypotheses were that firstly there is few early specific complications due to the use of a robotic-assisted system for unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and secondly there are less revisions and complications after robotic-assisted UKA than after conventional UKA.
methods200 robotic-assisted UKA (175 patients) and 191 conventional UKA (179 patients) were performed between 2013 and 2018 from the same center. Revisions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, functional and radiological results were collected at the most recent follow-up.
resultsAt the most recent follow-up (≥ 1 year), revision rates were 4% (n = 8/200) for robotic-assisted UKA and 11% (n = 21/191) for conventional UKA (p = 0.014). Reoperation rates without implant removal were comparable in the robotic and conventional group (7.3% vs 8.6%). Complication rates for stiffness (4.7% vs 4.2%) and infection (1% vs 1.6%) were comparable in both groups. There was no specific complication related to the robotic-assisted system (no soft tissue or bone lesion caused by the use of the robotic-assistance and no complication related to the use of navigation pins). The KSS function scores were higher following robotic-assisted UKA (p = 0.01). Satisfaction rates and contralateral OA were comparable in the two groups.
conclusionNo complications due to the robotic-assisted system were found in this study. There was no difference in the general complications rate between both groups. Robotic-assisted UKA has a lower revision rate compared to conventional technique UKA at the short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is the first paper comparing revision rate and clinical outcome between UKA performed using the NAVIO robotic system and a conventional technique and searching for specific complication related to the use of the NAVIO robotic system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32390119What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.