ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Robotic-assisted burr preparation significantly improves cement penetration but not immediate fixation strength in total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty: adverse events related to the robotic system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted burr preparation significantly improves cement penetration but not immediate fixation strength in total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is recognized for improving surgical precision, the effect of its bone preparation technique on cemented fixation remains unclear. This study compared the impact of robotic-assisted burr versus oscillating saw techniques on cement penetration and fixation strength.
methodsSeven paired (n = 14) fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens underwent either robotic-assisted TKA using a burr system or conventional TKA using an oscillating saw. Computer tomography scans quantified cement penetration, while maximum failure load was determined using pull-out testing.
resultsCement penetration was significantly greater in the burr group compared to the saw group (3.79 ± 0.84 cm³ vs. 2.67 ± 0.99 cm³, p = 0.03). The average pull-out strength for the burr group has no statistical difference compared with the saw group (2939 ± 760.9 N vs. 2372 ± 760.5 N, p = 0.16).
conclusionBone preparation using a burr technique significantly improves cement penetration compared to conventional oscillating saw technique. However, this did not translate to improved immediate fixation strength in time-zero biomechanical testing. Further clinical studies are needed to determine if enhanced cement penetration provides long-term benefits for implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.