ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparing cup implantation errors in total hip arthroplasty following rotational acetabular osteotomy: computed tomography-based navigation versus robotic arm-assisted system.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
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
backgroundRobotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to achieve acetabular cup implantation that more accurately reproduces the preoperative plan than computed tomography (CT)-based navigation. However, whether this superiority applies in technically demanding cases, such as THA following pelvic osteotomy, remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the cup-positioning errors in THA performed with these technologies in patients who had previously undergone rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO).
methodsTwenty-three patients (24 hips) underwent navigated THA between January 2017 and January 2021 (Navigation group), and 22 patients (24 hips) underwent robotic-assisted THA between February 2021 and February 2023 (Mako group). The error between preoperative planning and postoperative results was calculated and compared between the groups. The absolute values of errors in cup orientation (radiographic inclination and anteversion) and position (mediolateral, anteroposterior, and superoinferior axes) were assessed.
resultsAll absolute errors, except for the superoinferior axis in the Navigation group (3.4 ± 3.5 mm), were within 3° or 3 mm, indicating high accuracy. The absolute error in radiographic inclination was significantly lower in the Mako group than in the Navigation group (0.8 ± 0.8° versus 1.9 ± 1.3°; p = 0.005), whereas errors in radiographic anteversion and position did not differ significantly between the groups. No cup-related complications were noted in either group. From baseline to 2 years postoperatively, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip score improved significantly in the Navigation group (from 46.0 ± 9.3 to 89.7 ± 5.9) and the Mako group (from 50.0 ± 12.6 to 93.3 ± 5.8) (both p < 0.001), demonstrating satisfactory clinical outcomes.
conclusionsIn technically demanding THA after RAO, CT-based navigation and robotic-assisted systems demonstrated comparable acetabular cup placement errors and satisfactory short-term clinical outcomes. Although robotic-assisted THA was associated with a significantly smaller error in radiographic inclination, overall cup placement errors did not differ significantly between the two technologies.
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.