SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparison of MAKO robotic-assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of radiographic precision and short-term functional results.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Sex-related differences in final knee balance during robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study sought to evaluate whether the MAKO robotic system offers superior radiographic and functional advantages over traditional techniques in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed through October 2025 across multiple electronic platforms, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), and China Science and Technology Journal (CSTD). A total of 8,924 UKAs from 22 studies were included. Results: Findings indicated that MAKO-UKA and conventional methods yielded comparable scores for Visual Analogue Scale(VAS, P = 0.46 ), Pain Catastrophizing Scale(PCS, P = 0.3), American Knee Society Score (AKSS, P = 0.63), AKSS Total (P = 0.7), AKSS function(AKSSF, P = 0.66), Oxford Knee Score (OKS, P = 0.59); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS, P = 0.44), Mechanical femorotibial axis (MFTA, P = 0.07), Tibial component Coronal alignment (TCCA, P = 0.45), Tibial component posterior tilt(TCPT, P = 0.64), Lateral femoral component flexion-extension angle (LFCFEA, P = 0.96), Range of motion(ROM, P = 0.29 ), Complication rate(P = 0.53), Periprosthetic joint infection rate(PJI, P = 0.07), Revision rate(P = 0.14). However, MAKO-UKA was associated with improved femoral component coronal alignment (FCCA, P = 0.04), fewer FCCA outliers (P < 0.001), fewer TCCA outliers (P = 0.03), and reduced tibial posterior slope (PTS, P = 0.017), albeit with longer operative time (P < 0.001). Conclusion: While MAKO-UKA offers enhanced surgical precision and fewer alignment outliers, these technical advantages do not yet translate into superior short-term functional outcomes. Given the significant increase in procedural duration and the near-significant trend in infection rates, clinicians should remain vigilant. We emphasize that rigorous training and a focus on minimizing operative time are crucial for the safe implementation of this technology.
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.