SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotics improves reproducibility of component positioning while producing modest but measurable clinical benefits in total hip arthroplasty: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of cost and clinical outcomes.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Kinematic Alignment Does Not Result in Clinically Important Improvements After TKA Compared With Mechanical Alignment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Pooled it
- MAKO robotic-assisted compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- MAKO robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Body mass index and robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: current evidence, technical challenges, and clinical implications-a critical review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Asia-Pacific expert consensus on robotic-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: Implications for Surgical Practice and Operating Theatre Design.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- [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
- A novel pinless augmented reality-based navigation system for total hip arthroplasty in the supine position: a comparative study of acetabular cup angle accuracy.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a nationwide propensity-matched analysis of adoption, outcomes, and complications.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Applications of robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery: A technology review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Time to Achieve a Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison of Robotic-Assisted, Navigation-Assisted, and Conventional Techniques.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: an analysis from a middle income country.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and high tibial osteotomy for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis in young patients: a Canadian public payer perspective.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.Oman medical journal · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted hip and knee revision arthroplasty: A scoping review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare important clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) and conventional total hip arthroplasty (COTHA) in patients with hip osteoarthritis. We identified published RCTs comparing RATHA with COTHA in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main outcomes were major complications, revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and radiological outcomes. We included 8 RCTs involving 1014 patients and 977 hips. There was no difference in major complication rate (Relative Risk (RR) 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.74), revision rate (RR 1.33; 95%CI 0.08 to 22.74), and PROMs (standardized mean difference 0.01; 95%CI - 0.27 to 0.30) between RATHA and COTHA. RATHA resulted in little to no effects on femoral stem alignment (mean difference (MD) - 0.57 degree; 95%CI - 1.16 to 0.03) but yielded overall lower leg length discrepancy (MD - 4.04 mm; 95%CI - 7.08 to - 1.0) compared to COTHA. Most combined estimates had low certainty of evidence mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Based on the current evidence, there is no important difference in clinical and functional outcomes between RATHA and COTHA. The trivial higher radiological accuracy was also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Regardless, more robust evidence is needed to improve the quality and strength of the current evidence.PROSPERO registration: the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023453294). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
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.