SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Do image-based robotic TKR systems improve radiological or clinical outcomes compared to image-free systems? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic total knee replacement (TKR) systems improve the precision of implant positioning. They can either be image-based(IB) or image-free(IF), and each has a different pre-operative imaging requirement and workflow. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the differences in post-operative radiographic alignment and implant position between IB and IF systems. The secondary aim is to compare patient-reported outcome measures(PROMs) and complications between IB and IF systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on implant position, radiological alignment, clinical outcomes or complications between IB and IF robotic knee systems were included. The studies were assessed using the Methodical Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool. Five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in outlier rates between IB and IF systems for femoral coronal alignment 6.8% vs. 2.6% [OR 2.00, (95% CI 0.81 to 4.96)], tibial coronal alignment 3.4% vs. 2.1% [OR 1.49, (95% CI 0.57 to 3.89)], posterior tibial slope 23.5% vs. 4.4% [OR 2.90, (95% CI 0.11 to 73.49)], HKA 4.8% vs. 2.5% [OR 1.38, (95% CI 0.19 to 9.81)] between the two groups. There was no significant difference in complication rate between IB and IF groups, 7.6% vs. 3.0% [OR 2.53, (95% CI 0.86 to 7.42)]. No studies reported improved PROMs between IB and IF robotic TKR systems. The mean MINORS score for comparative studies was 16.8 (Range 15-19). This meta-analysis did not find evidence of any improvement in radiological, clinical or PROMs outcomes in IB systems compared to IF systems. Further randomised controlled trials are required to assess the superiority of either system as the current evidence base is small with heterogenous measurement methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41392220What 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.