Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Perioperative safety and efficacy of robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty in ERAS-managed patients: a pilot study.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty on infection outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of orthopedic robots in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- [Progress and future prospects of robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluating Spin Bias in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2026Review
- Optimizing Early Recovery Quality in Same-Day Discharge Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.Oman medical journal · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in reducing hidden blood loss during unilateral total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Driving Forces for Outpatient Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- A comprehensive predictive model for postoperative joint function in robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty patients: combining radiomics and clinical indicators.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robot-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Demonstrates Improved 90-Day Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsRobot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) boasts superior accuracy in implant placement, but there is a lack of effective assessment in perioperative management in the context of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of rTHA versus conventional total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) in ERAS-managed patients.
methodsIn this prospective trial, a total of 60 eligible patients aged between 18 and 80 years were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either rTHA or cTHA. The primary outcomes included blood loss parameters. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the operation, surgical time, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, Harris score, and postoperative complications.
resultsThe study cohort analyzed 59 eligible participants, 30 of whom underwent rTHA and 29 of whom underwent cTHA. Analysis could not be conducted for one patient due to severe anemia. Notably, the cTHA group had a significantly shorter surgical time than the rTHA group (69.49 ± 18.97 vs. 104.20 ± 19.63 min, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the rTHA and cTHA groups for blood loss parameters, including total blood loss (1280.30 ± 404.01 vs. 1094.86 ± 494.39 ml, P = 0.137) and drainage volume (154.35 ± 121.50 vs. 159.13 ± 135.04 ml, P = 0.900), as well as intraoperative blood loss (126.67 ± 38.80 vs. 118.52 ± 60.68 ml, P = 0.544) and hidden blood loss (982.43 ± 438.83 vs. 784.00 ± 580.96 ml, P = 0.206). Only one patient in the cTHA group required allogeneic blood transfusion. At 3 months postoperatively, both groups showed improvements in WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, and Harris score, with no significant differences found between the two groups. Few complications were reported in both groups without significant differences.
conclusionsDespite the longer surgical time, rTHA did not negatively affect blood loss, pain, or functional recovery or lead to an increased risk of complications in ERAS-managed patients, suggesting that rTHA can be safely and effectively incorporated into an ERAS program for primary THA.
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.