ArticleCureus2025
Accuracy of Robotic Surgical Assistant (ROSA®) Surgical Plan in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionRobotic assistance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) promises better outcomes through data-supported, personalized alignment. The primary goal of this study was to assess the accuracy of surgical plans delivered by the Robotic Surgical Assistant (ROSA®) Knee System. The secondary goal was to evaluate the variability in knee balancing and implant alignment and to assess the effect of ROSA® on surgery duration and complication rates as compared to the conventional TKA cohort. Materials: Inclusion criteria were primary TKA indicated by osteoarthritis (OA), age of 40-90 years, body mass index (BMI) of 18.5-50 kg/m
resultsThe accuracy of medial and lateral distal femoral resection levels was high (mean differences between the plan and validation, -0.50 ± 0.91 mm and -0.59 ± 0.96 mm, respectively). Accuracy of the medial and lateral tibia was less with greater variability (-0.44 ± 2.28 mm and 2.50 ± 3.13 mm, respectively). The femoral component size was accurately predicted in 75% of cases, with overestimation occurring in 20% of cases. Surgical steps were repeated in 59% of femoral cuts and 61% of tibial cuts. Surgical duration was significantly different between groups. ROSA TKA surgery was 18 minutes longer and was prolonged by five minutes per repeated surgical step. The hip-knee-ankle (HKA) axis was 1.6°±1.9° varus post-operatively. Complication rates were not significantly different from ROSA®-assisted TKA as compared to conventional TKA. Discussion: ROSA®-assisted TKA planning demonstrated a high degree of accuracy for the femur, but a lesser degree for the tibia. Predicting implant sizes was highly accurate. With ROSA®-assistance, alignment differed from mechanical alignment. Future studies should provide a higher level of evidence and investigate the relation between anatomical outcomes and clinical outcomes.
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.