ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2025
In Vivo Kinematics for Various Robotically Performed Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Designs.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of native Posterior condylar axis-Transepicondylar axis variability on femoral component rotation using robotic total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Flexion-dependent differences in tibial rotation measured by navigation and robotic systems during bicruciate-stabilised total knee arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Coronal plane alignment changes do not affect in vivo kinematics for robotically performed total knee arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although it is well-documented that robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can improve surgical precision, evaluations of the postoperative kinematics of patients implanted using robotics remain less common. The objective of this study is to analyze the weight-bearing kinematics for multiple TKAs implanted using two different surgical robots. In vivo knee kinematics were assessed using fluoroscopy for 28 subjects implanted with a Bi-Cruciate Stabilized (BCS) TKA, 23 with a Bi-Cruciate Retaining (BCR) TKA, 13 with a posterior stabilized (PS) TKA, and 22 with a cruciate retaining (CR) TKA. All subjects were implanted by the same surgeon using the respective company's surgical robot. All subjects performed a weight-bearing deep knee bend. Parameters of interest include the femoral condylar anterior/posterior motion, femorotibial axial rotation, and weight-bearing range-of-motion. The BCS TKA experienced the most posterior rollback, 13.4 ± 4.4 mm for the lateral condyle and 5.8 ± 2.5 mm for the medial condyle. These subjects also experienced the most femorotibial axial rotation, +9.3 ± 5.3°. Conversely, CR subjects experienced the least overall rollback and most anterior sliding, 0.4 ± 3.8 mm of lateral rollback and 1.9 ± 4.1 mm of medial anterior sliding. Implant design appears to play a significant role in postoperative kinematics. Improved stability is evident in TKAs that account for the ACL. However, no system behaved significantly better nor worse than previously published literature evaluating standard instrumentation. Level of Evidence: Level 3, retrospective cohort study.
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.