ArticleSICOT-J2024
Robotic-assisted versus conventional hip arthroplasty: a comparative analysis of perioperative blood management and early outcomes.
Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty and the risk of postoperative infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty on infection outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Does a longer operative time increase perioperative trauma in robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty? A post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Five-year implant-related complication rates of total hip arthroplasty performed for osteonecrosis were not improved by robotic-assisted or computer-navigated techniques.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a three-year comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes and complications.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Utilization Trends and Surgical Outcomes of Technology-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States From 2014 Through 2024.Arthroplasty today · 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
- 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty (RATHA) versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty (CTHA) on perioperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in patients with hip arthritis.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study, conducted at a high-volume tertiary care center from January 2021 to January 2023. Two hundred patients undergoing primary THA, were equally divided between RATHA (using the MAKO SmartRobotics system) and CTHA cohorts. Primary outcomes measured were perioperative hemoglobin changes, estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rates. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stays, and transfusion-related adverse events.
resultsThe mean pre-operative hemoglobin levels were comparable between the cohorts. However, the RATHA group demonstrated significantly lower post-operative day 1 hemoglobin drops, reduced EBL (1212.7 mL vs. 1565.24 mL in CTHA; p < 0.0001), and fewer transfusions (7 vs. 29 in CTHA; p < 0.0001). Operative times were shorter in the RATHA group (68.01 min vs. 77.1 min in CTHA; p < 0.0001). All robotic cohort patients were discharged within 3 days, while 14% (N = 7) of the CTHA group required extended hospital stay.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that RATHA significantly reduces perioperative blood loss, hemoglobin drop, and blood transfusion rates compared to CTHA. The observed decrease in operative time and hospital stay in the RATHA group further suggests that robotic assistance may enhance procedural efficiency and support faster patient recovery.
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.