ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Is Native Joint Line More Accurately Restored with Robotic Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty than with Conventional Instruments?
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Changes in joint line (JL) position after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have revealed implant failure, diminished knee function, and altered knee biomechanics. The purpose of this study was to compare the joint line restoration of robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) and conventional TKA (c-TKA). Materials and Methods: In a prospective cohort study trial, trained fellows performed radiographic analyses on patients receiving RA-TKA (group-1) and c-TKA (group-2) to quantify joint line using the adductor tubercle method. Statistical analysis was used using t-tests, with statistical significance defined as a P < 0.005. Results: The study contained 150 RA-TKAs and 150 total C-TKAs. Both groups were comparable in demographics such as age, gender, and body mass index. On average, RA-TKAs resulted in a 1.65 ± 0.46 mm shift in the JL position, while C-TKAs resulted in a 2.52 ± 0.52 mm change (P = 0.000). The interclass correlation coefficient between the robotic and conventional groups is around 0.992. Conclusion: RA-TKA restores the JL position better than C-TKA, which appears to depend on precise planning and ligament balancing, which is attainable with robotic-aided surgery. The clinical relevance of this statistically significant difference requires additional investigation.
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.