ArticleBJA open2026
Opioid consumption during hospitalisation among robotic-assisted, computer-assisted, and manual total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJA 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We examined total opioid consumption during hospitalisation across manual (MA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and robotic-assisted (RA-THA) total hip arthroplasty. Methods: This retrospective cohort study (2016-2023, Premier Healthcare database) of patients undergoing unilateral elective THA assessed opioid consumption during hospitalisation and by postoperative day (POD). Two-part mixed-effects models were conducted: first of a logistic regression for opioid use (yes/no) and second a linear regression model of log(opioid consumption) among opioid consumers. Results: During hospitalisation of 584 578 patients, CA-THA was associated with lower odds of any opioid consumption than MA-THA (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-0.95). RA-THA was associated with higher odds of any opioid consumption than CA-THA (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39). Among opioid consumers, CA-THA and RA-THA were associated with a 2% lower total opioid consumption than MA-THA (both multiplicative effects [ME], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). The strongest effect was observed on POD 1: lower odds of opioid consumption for both CA-THA (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83) and RA-THA (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88) than for MA-THA, and among those who consumed opioids, there was 9% lower (ME, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93) and 6% lower (ME, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96) opioid consumption for CA-THA and RA-THA, respectively, than for MA-THA. Conclusions: Among those who consumed opioids, technology-assisted THA was associated with lower opioid consumption than MA-THA, primarily due to differences observed on POD 1. Although these differences are not clinically significant enough to affect decision-making, technology-assisted THA might be associated with anaesthetic techniques that confer improved pain relief in the immediate postoperative period.
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.