Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41749402›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery & related research2026

Comparative analysis of revision causes between robotic-assisted and conventional manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pengyu Xiang, Hongfu Jin, Yiming Dai, Yixin Yang, Chenhao Jia, Lather Sagar, Jian Zhang, Yungang Wu, Chunwu Zhang, Shengwu Yang and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Pengyu Xiang *Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Hongfu Jin *Sports Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Yiming DaiDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Yixin YangDepartment of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 951772, USA.
Chenhao JiaDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Lather SagarDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Jian ZhangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affifiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518035, Guangdong, China.
Yungang WuGeriatrics Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Chunwu ZhangGeriatrics Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
Shengwu YangDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China. yangshengwu@wmu.edu.cn.
Zhenhan DengDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China. dengzhenhan@wmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-8269

Funding

Guangdong Province Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation 2022A1515220055Key Discipline of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Zhejiang Province-Clinical Integration of Chinese and Western Medicine (TCM Orthopedics and Traumatology) of The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University no. 2024-XK-50Medical and Health Research Project of Zhejiang Province 2024KY1270National Natural Science Foundation of China 82472495National Natural Science Foundation of China 82472559Wu Jieping Medical Foundation Clinical Research Special Project 320.6750.2022-6-33
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) is an emerging procedure; however, its benefits over conventional manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (C-UKA) are controversial, especially the revision and failure rates, and existing studies failed to reach a consensus on this issue.

methodsThe literature search was conducted on four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) from inception to 28 April 2025 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Eligibility criteria were studies that were written in English and reported any causes for a revision or failure subsequent to UKA with comparisons between R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

resultsA total of 15 studies incorporating 29,982 patients with 30,099 knees (22,290 in the C-UKA group and 7809 in the R-UKA group) were analyzed. Compared with R-UKA, C-UKA showed higher total revision rates (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: ~1.33-1.87; P < 0.00001; I

conclusionsCompared with C-UKA, R-UKA may lower the risk of revision related to loosening, disease progression, and limb malalignment. Loosening remains the primary revision cause for both. Large-scale prospective trials with unified technical details are warranted to draw more rigorous conclusions in the future.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251042604.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisRevisionRobotSystematic reviewUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID41749402
PMCPMC12937531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.