ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2024
All Enabling Technology Is Not Created Equal: Comparing Outcomes of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation Versus Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Compared With Robotic or Manual Techniques.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation and robotic technologies aim to optimize implant placement and alignment in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to improve patient outcomes. This study uses a retrospective hospital billing database covering 1,300 hospitals to compare the clinical and economic effect of these technologies.
methodsThe study compared patients undergoing THA with robotic versus computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation technologies between January 1, 2016, and September 30, 2021, using the Premier Healthcare Database. Primary outcomes were operating room time and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, discharge status, revision rates within 90- and 365-day follow-up, and hospital costs. Baseline covariate differences between the two cohorts were balanced using fine stratification methodology and analyzed using generalized linear models. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using the nearest neighbor matching as the covariate balancing technique.
resultsThe cohorts included 4,378 fluoroscopically navigated THA and 10,423 robotic-assisted THA procedures with 90-day follow-up. Operating room time was markedly lower with fluoroscopic navigation compared with robotic-assisted technology (137.74 vs. 156.00 minutes; P < 0.001). Hip-related readmission rates were markedly lower (P < 0.001) for fluoroscopic navigation for both 90- and 365-day follow-up, by 43% and 40% respectively, compared with robotic-assisted technology. Results showed increased discharge ratio to home/home health, reduced length of stay, and lower hospital costs for fluoroscopic navigation compared with robotic-assisted technology. Revision rates were similar for both cohorts.
conclusionUsing computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation in THA was associated with markedly lower operating room time and readmission rates while also having improved healthcare outcomes and costs compared with robotic-assisted technology.
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.