ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: evidence from a national database.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotics improves reproducibility of component positioning while producing modest but measurable clinical benefits in total hip arthroplasty: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Patellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations but comparable clinical and functional outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with more favorable early patient-reported outcomes and may attenuate experience-related outcome differences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Asia-Pacific expert consensus on robotic-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gained popularity for its potential to improve implant precision and reduce surgical errors. However, comparative evidence on short-term outcomes versus conventional UKA is lacking. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional UKA using a nationally representative database.
methodsThe Nationwide Readmissions Database 2016-2020 was retrospectively examined to identify adult patients who received an elective UKA. After applying exclusion criteria and 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 8310 patients were included in the analysis. Outcomes included in-hospital complications, implant malposition or failure, perioperative fracture, length of hospital stay (LOS), hospital costs, and 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to adjust for residual confounding factors.
resultsRobotic-assisted UKA was associated with significantly lower complication rates compared with conventional UKA (3.7% versus 13.2%, p < 0.001). Specifically, robotic-assisted procedures had reduced risks of implant malposition or failure (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.13; p < 0.001) and perioperative fracture (OR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.76; p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in LOS, total hospital costs, or readmission rates at 30 and 90 days.
conclusionsRobotic-assisted UKA is associated with improved short-term surgical safety, including fewer complications, particularly, reduced implant malposition and perioperative fractures. However, broader hospital metrics such as LOS, cost, and readmissions were comparable between the two approaches. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.