Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36705615›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2023

Robotic-assisted revision total joint arthroplasty: a state-of-the-art scoping review.

Xiang-Dong Wu, Yixin Zhou, Hongyi Shao, Dejin Yang, Sheng-Jie Guo, Wei Huang

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The use of an imageless robotic system in revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Management of Venous Thromboembolism After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiang-Dong WuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3920-4372
Yixin ZhouDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Hongyi ShaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Dejin YangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Sheng-Jie GuoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Wei HuangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During the past decades, robotic-assisted technology has experienced an incredible advancement in the field of total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which demonstrated promise in improving the accuracy and precision of implantation and alignment in both primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, revision TJA remains a technically challenging procedure with issues of large-scale bone defects and damage to nearby anatomical structures. Thus, surgeons are trying to harness the abilities of robotic-assisted technology for revision TJA surgery. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant publications that reported the application of robotic-assisted technology in revision TJA. Results: Overall, ten studies reported the use of the robotic system in revision TJA, including active (ROBODOC) and semi-active (MAKO and NAVIO) systems. One clinical case reported conversion from hip fusion to THA, and three studies reported revision from primary THA to revision THA. Moreover, four studies reported that robotic-assisted technology is helpful in revising unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA, and two case reports converted primary TKA to revision TKA. In this study, we present the latest evolvements, applications, and technical obstacles of robotic-assisted technology in the revision of TJA and the current state-of-the-art. Conclusion: Current available evidence suggests that robotic-assisted technology may help surgeons to reproducibly perform preoperative plans and accurately achieve operative targets during revision TJA. However, concerns remain regarding preoperative metal artifacts, registration techniques, closed software platforms, further bone loss after implant removal, and whether robotic-assisted surgery will improve implant positioning and long-term survivorship.

Indexed as

revisionrobotic-assistedscoping reviewtotal hip arthroplastytotal joint arthroplastytotal knee arthroplastyunicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36705615
PMCPMC9969009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.