ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty: precision without superiority in coronal alignment and patellar orientation.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been proposed to improve precision in implant positioning and joint line restoration compared with manual TKA (mTKA). However, it remains unclear whether this increased accuracy results in superior functional or radiographic outcomes. This study aimed to compare mechanical alignment and patellofemoral restoration between robotic and manual techniques. A retrospective study including 600 consecutives primary TKAs performed from 2015 to 2024 was conducted. Patients were allocated into robotic (n = 300) and manual (n = 300) groups. All procedures were performed by the same arthroplasty team using a standardized surgical protocol and identical prosthesis model. Radiographic assessment included femorotibial mechanical axis and patellar orientation at a minimum of 12 months. Alignment was considered adequate when the absolute angular discrepancy was ≤ 2°. Statistical analyses included χ² tests, Student’s t-tests, and equivalence testing with the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) method. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. All knees achieved alignment within the ≤ 2° tolerance (100% vs. 100%). Mean angular discrepancy showed no significant differences (manual 0.52° vs. robotic 0.48°; p = 0.37). The robotic technique achieved a higher rate of exact matches (64% vs. 52%), while both remained within clinically accepted limits. Equivalence and non-inferiority analyses confirmed statistically and clinically equivalent outcomes between techniques. Robot-assisted TKA provides greater geometric precision; however, this advantage does not translate into measurable clinical or radiographic superiority when the manual technique is performed under a standardized protocol by experienced surgeons. Both methods demonstrated equivalent performance in restoring mechanical alignment and patellofemoral relationships. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. Retrospective comparative study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41663694What 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.