ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Evolving techniques in active robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of pin placement strategies.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Patient Preferences for Tracker Pin-Related Incision Configurations in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Impact of the femoral pin tracker on periprosthetic fractures in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- [Research progress on tracker fixation strategies and related complications in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) significantly improves surgical precision, implant alignment, and functional outcomes, but extra-incisional pin placement can lead to complications like infections, fractures, and quadriceps tethering. This study evaluates the outcomes of intra-incisional pin placement compared to traditional extra-incisional pin placement in RA-TKA using the fully active robotic system. A retrospective analysis was conducted including 1106 patients who underwent cruciate-retaining RA-TKA. Both the groups were operated by single surgeon with sub-vastus approach without tourniquet. Patients were categorized into two groups: intra-incisional pin placement (Group 1, n = 547) and extra-incisional pin placement (Group 2, n = 559). Outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and complications, such as pin-site infections, fractures, stiffness, and wound issues, were compared between groups. Postoperative OKS and FJS showed comparable functional recovery between the groups, with Group 1 demonstrating slightly better patient-reported outcomes (OKS: 42.16 ± 14.78 vs. 41.78 ± 14.32; p = 0.66; 95% CI -2.09 to 1.34; FJS: 87.34 ± 17.66 vs. 84.67 ± 15.88; p < 0.008; 95% CI -4.65 to -0.69). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in Group 1 (2.01%) compared to Group 2 (14.31%, p < 0.001), with no pin-site infections or fractures in the intra-incisional group. Pin-site pain, a major concern in Group 2, was absent in Group 1 (9.12% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Active RA-TKA can be effectively performed using intra-incisional pin placement, offering a safer alternative to extra-incisional approaches. This technique bars additional incisions, potentially lowering the risk of infection and fractures while preserving functional outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these benefits across diverse patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40875157What 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.