ArticleBone & joint open2026
Comparing the express and enhanced workflows for restoration of hip length and combined offset using the Mako robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The Mako system is one of the most widely used systems for robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA). Two workflows for femoral preparation exists for this system - the enhanced and the express workflow. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing the accuracy of each workflow in restoring the patient's combined offset and correcting the hip length discrepancy. The Mako derived values were compared against measured values and assessed with Bland-Altman plots and Theil's median slope. Secondary outcomes of interest included comparison of the measured combined offset and hip length discrepancy, surgical time, incidence of postoperative instability/dislocation, as well as pin-site related complications between the two groups. Results: A total of 81 patients were identified from our database: 61 in the enhanced group and 20 in the express workflow group. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated agreement between the measurements for both hip length discrepancy and combined offset. There was no significant difference in the measurement of hip length discrepancy or combined offset difference between the two groups; however, the magnitude of the latter was better in the enhanced (median 1.50 mm) compared with the express workflow group (median 3.13 mm). There was no significant difference in measured combined offset (p = 0.254), hip length discrepancy (p = 0.425), or surgical time (p = 0.548). Lastly, there were no patients with postoperative instability/dislocation nor pin-site related complications in either group. Conclusion: Both techniques provide excellent outcomes with minimal risk of complications when performing a Mako robotic arm-assisted THA.
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.