ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021
Robotics improves alignment accuracy and reduces early revision rates for UKA in the hands of low-volume UKA surgeons.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Internet promotion of robotically assisted arthroplasty by members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons: are we telling the whole story?Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- NATON robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty achieves superior radiological alignment and comparable one-year functional outcomes to conventional surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Use of the VELYS Robotic-Assisted Solution in knee arthroplasty: A scoping review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- 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 robotics enhance precision and efficiency in lateral UKA: A comparative study of 135 UKAs.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- National trends in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 2020 to 2022.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- How to Perform Better on Oxford UKA? A Technical Note from over 500 Surgical Experiences.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Implant-dependent behavior of tunnel widening and clavicular button migration after arthroscopic-assisted treatment of acromioclavicular joint instabilities.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- The Deep-MCL Line: A Reliable Anatomical Landmark to Optimize the Tibial Cut in UKA.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- [Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
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
purposeIt is known that in uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) low-volume surgeons have a higher complication and revision rate than high-volume surgeons. Further, robotic-assisted UKA leads to lower early revision rate as well as fewer limb and joint line outliers compared to conventional UKA. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outliers' and revision rate of low-volume UKA surgeons with different robotic systems at short-term follow-up.
methodsIn this case-control study, 103 robotic-assisted UKAs were included. The procedures were performed between 2016 and 2019 from two low-volume UKA surgeons with an imageless (IL) (63 patients) and image-based (IB) (40 patients) robotic system. Alignment outliers, joint line (JL) reconstruction, complication and revision rates of the two different robotic systems were analyzed. The minimum follow-up was two years. Outliers were defined as a postoperative valgus malalignment greater than 182°. The surgery time for all procedures was evaluated.
resultsThe overall revision rate was 3.9% (4 of 103). Two occurred in the IB group (5.0%) and two in the IL group (3.2%). No valgus malalignment outliers were observed in both groups. The mean JL was not distalized by more than 2 mm in both groups (IL: 1.3 ± 1.6 mm vs. IB: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, p value 0.08). The IL procedures had a significant lower mean surgery time (55 ± 13 min vs. 68 ± 14, p value 0.001).
conclusionRobotic-assisted UKA is a safe procedure in the hand of low-volume UKA surgeons. Robotic-assisted UKA minimizes overcorrection into valgus mal-alignment. Low revision rates are observed at short-term follow-up for robotic-assisted UKA. The choice of the different robotic systems has no impact on the outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.