ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
A Radiological Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Techniques in Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Femoral neck anteversion- what's normal in Indians: a morphological study of 742 hips using CT-based MAKO robotic evaluation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparison of accuracy of acetabular cup placement using manual versus robotic-assistance in the same patient cohort undergoing robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Enhanced and express workflows in robotic total hip arthroplasty: A paired accuracy study using radiographic validation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty correlates with superior acetabular bone preservation: a cup-to-head ratio and volumetric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the radiological outcomes of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) compared to manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA), addressing the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of RATHA in achieving superior implant positioning accuracy. Methods: A prospective cohort of 212 patients (103 robotic, 109 manual) underwent THA and were evaluated for postoperative radiological outcomes, focusing on the inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular cup. Outlier prevalence was assessed based on angles outside the defined Lewinnek safe zones. All post-operative measurements were made using the BoneNinja application. Results: High inter-observer and intra-observer reliabilities were observed, validating the measurement accuracy. The mean anteversion and inclination angles in the RATHA cohort were 40.5 ± 1.5 and 24.5 ± 3.1° respectively; and the mTHA cohort were 42.1 ± 4.9 and 24.9 ± 4.5°. There was a statistically significant difference in inclination angles between the two cohorts whereas the anteversion angles showed no difference. Majority of the conventional THRs ( Conclusion: RATHA significantly outperforms MTHA in radiological accuracy, achieving precise acetabular cup positioning with minimal outliers. These results advocate for RATHA's adoption in THA to enhance outcome predictability and affirm its reliability and safety over manual methods.
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.