ReviewOman medical journal2025
Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.
Review in Oman medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: does improved precision translate into better clinical outcomes? A systematic review.International orthopaedics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Hip osteoarthritis is a growing global health burden with an increasing demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly among older populations. Robotic-assisted THA (RATHA) has emerged as a technological advancement that may improve precision, implant alignment, and potentially patient outcomes compared with conventional THA (COTHA). This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of RATHA and COTHA. Methods: A systematic search was conducted from PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library inception until 31 August 2024, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, and cohort studies that compared RATHA with COTHA. Exclusion criteria were case reports, case series, abstracts, review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, biomechanical or cadaveric studies, studies on revision THA or high-grade hip dysplasia, and non-English publications. Data were extracted and assessed using the Covidence systematic review software and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcomes were clinical outcomes measured by patient-reported outcome measures. The secondary outcomes were operative outcomes, complications, and radiological assessment. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, representing populations from Asia, the USA, the UK, and Italy. A total of 933 patients were assessed, 467 of whom underwent RATHA. No significant differences observed in patient-reported outcome measures. COTHA had shorter operative times, whereas RATHA showed potential in reducing hospital stays. RATHA demonstrated improved radiological outcomes, particularly in implant alignment; however, no significant differences were observed in complication rates. Conclusions: RATHA offers advantages in radiological precision but provides clinical outcomes similar to those of COTHA in terms of patient satisfaction and complications. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the long-term benefits of RATHA.
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.