ArticleBone & joint open2026
Acetabular component placement accuracy and short-term outcomes in total hip arthroplasty : comparison of robotic arm-assisted surgery system and an augmented reality-based portable navigation.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted arthroplasty paradox: the disconnect between precision and patient-perceived outcomes.Bone & joint open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Precise acetabular component positioning is critical to the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Mako uses CT-based robotic assistance, whereas AR-hip is an augmented reality-based portable navigation system operating without preoperative CT and at lower costs. Although both systems improve accuracy, direct comparative data are scarce. We compared cup placement accuracy and short-term outcomes between Mako robotic arm and AR navigation systems. Methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 192 primary THAs (Mako, 147; AR navigation, 45). Cup placement accuracy was assessed three-dimensionally using postoperative CT, evaluating cup alignment (radiological inclination (RI) and anteversion (RA)) and position (centre of rotation (COR)). Short-term outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip score (JOA), Japanese Hip-disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and 10 m walk test (10MWT). Baseline differences were adjusted using propensity score overlap weighting. Results: Mako demonstrated significantly superior accuracy than AR navigation, with smaller absolute errors in cup angles (RI 2.0° vs 3.0°, p = 0.045; RA 1.7° vs 2.4°, p = 0.005) and COR errors in the superior-inferior direction (1.5 mm vs 3.7 mm, p < 0.001). More cases were within 5° of planned angles with Mako (92.3% vs 77.7%, p = 0.030), while Lewinnek safe zone rates were high in both groups (99.5% vs 95.2%, p = 0.202). Short-term clinical scores and functional recovery at discharge were similar between groups. Operating time and blood loss were greater with Mako (122.6 vs 103.5 mins; 242.5 vs 171.5 ml; both p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed greater advantages of Mako in complex cases, such as obesity and developmental dysplasia of the hip, although interactions were insignificant. Conclusion: Mako demonstrated superior cup placement accuracy and COR reconstruction compared with AR navigation, with comparable short-term clinical outcomes, potentially offering advantages in complex cases. However, further research is warranted to clarify its long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
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.