Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890890›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2025

Novel all-intra-incisional pin placement technique in robotic total knee arthroplasty: a safer alternative.

Zi Qiang Glen Liau, Wai Keong Ryan Loke, Danakkrisna Vachalam S/O Rangasamie, Yu Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zi Qiang Glen LiauAlexandra Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. glen_liau@nuhs.edu.sg.
Wai Keong Ryan LokeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Danakkrisna Vachalam S/O RangasamieAlexandra Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Yu LiuAlexandra Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMajor robotic systems for total knee replacements necessitate the use of array pins in the tibia and femur. These extra-incisional pins are placed away from the primary incision and may be associated with soft tissue complications and peri-prosthetic fractures. There is currently no standardized, reproducible method for reliably placing pins in the femur and tibia metaphyses. We have developed an all-intra-incisional pin method within the primary incision. This paper aims to describe our technique, analyse the proximity of the pins to the implants, and study complications arising from both techniques.

methodsA total of 102 robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties were performed using the ROSA, MAKO, and CORI systems. Patient charts were reviewed for their age, gender, body mass index, and ethnicity. Post-operative day zero radiographs of the operated knee were used for measurements in anteroposterior and lateral views, with X-ray magnifications taken into consideration.

resultsOur study demonstrates that intra-incisional pins can be placed 6.52 times closer to the tibial implant compared to extra-incisional pins on the anteroposterior X-ray view radiographs, with no observed significant difference between the complication rates. In anteroposterior view, it allows placement of tibia pins within 8.99 ± 1.21 mm (95% CI: 7.78, 10.2) of the tibial implant, within 5.93 ± 1.29 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.22) of the tibia-reamed-surface, and placement of the femoral pins within 6.01 ± 1.37 mm (95% CI: 4.64, 7.37) of the femoral implant. In the lateral X-ray view, it enables the placement of tibial pins within 9.40 ± 1.43 mm (95% CI: 7.97, 10.8) of the implant. Univariate analysis reveals that our technique and pin-distance from the implants are not influenced by patient demographics.

conclusionOur study has demonstrated that our technique is precise, not affected by patients' demographics, and eliminates the need for pin repositioning, potentially reducing the incidence of pin-site complications.

Indexed as

Assisted, Knee replacement, AllFractureIncisionalIntraPins, Complications, PinRoboticSite

Identifiers

PMID40890890
PMCPMC12403252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.