ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparison of robot-assisted modified subvastus approach versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mako robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty mitigates the impact of surgeon handedness.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Mako robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty mitigates the impact of surgeon handedness.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the short-term efficacy of the Mako robot-assisted modified subvastus approach (MA-MSVA) with the conventional medial parapatellar approach (MPA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
methodsThis study included 275 patients who underwent TKA between May 2024 and May 2025, divided into the MA-MSVA group (n = 78), the MSVA group (n = 74), and the MPA group (n = 123). The three groups were compared in terms of early postoperative prosthesis alignment accuracy: mechanical tibiofemoral angle, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle, lateral femoral component (the flexion angle of the femoral implant), lateral tibial component (the slope angle of the tibial implant) and outlier rates; clinical outcomes: International Knee Documentation Committee, five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L), knee society score (KSS), visual analog scale (VAS) and range of motion (ROM); quadriceps muscle strength: knee extensors (KE ) and knee flexors (KF), and muscle injury markers: creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase.
resultsThe MA-MSVA group demonstrated significantly superior prosthesis alignment accuracy compared with MSVA and MPA groups (P < 0.05), with the lowest outlier rate. On postoperative days (POD) 1 and 14, the MA-MSVA group demonstrated better outcomes in EQ-5D-5 L, KSS, VAS, and ROM than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Muscle injury in POD 1 was less severe (lower CK values), and muscle strength recovery was faster (higher KE and KF) within 30 days postoperatively in the MA-MSVA group. The MSVA group outperformed the MPA group in terms of early functional recovery and muscle strength recovery; however, its alignment accuracy was similar to that of the MPA group.
conclusionMA-MSVA significantly enhances prosthesis alignment accuracy, accelerates early functional recovery, reduces pain, and promotes quadriceps strength recovery following TKA. While MSVA provides advantages in functional recovery over MPA, its alignment accuracy remains comparable. MA-MSVA technique, by combining precision with minimally invasive benefits, aligns with the enhanced recovery after surgery concept and merits clinical application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.