SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Early clinical, radiological, and safety outcomes of NAVIO-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has emerged as an advanced technology for improving surgical precision and early clinical outcomes. Although several studies have reported favorable outcomes, direct comparisons between a NAVIO-assisted UKA and conventional UKA (C-UKA) remain limited. This research aimed to evaluate differences in radiological alignment, clinical outcomes, perioperative data, and safety between NAVIO-UKA and C-UKA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus , as well as primary Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (CSTD), until January 2026 to find relevant comparative studies. Statistical analysis was conducted using software STATA MP (V18. 0). There was no significant difference in postoperative Hip–Knee–Ankle (HKA) angle alignment between NAVIO-assisted and conventional UKA (P = 0.94). The group assisted by NAVIO had a higher posterior tibial slope (PTS) and fewer PTS outliers (P < 0.001). The NAVIO-assisted UKA showed a significant association with Visual Analog Scale pain score (P = 0.01) and higher Knee Society Score functional scores (P < 0.001), International Knee Society knee scores (P = 0.01), and Forgotten Joint score (P = 0.04), with no significant difference in IKS function scores (P = 0.32). It took a longer time during operation for the NAVIO-assisted group (P < 0.001). No differences were observed between these groups in hospitalisation days or postoperative range of motion. There were lower overall complication and revision rates in the NAVIO-assisted group, though patient satisfaction rates were similar between groups. According to the limited available literature, NAVIO-assisted UKA is associated with more reliable tibial component implantation, promising early clinical results and a lower incidence of complications and revisions in the short term, at the expense of longer operative time. However, given the limited follow-up and low event numbers, these safety outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Additional high-quality randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up are necessary to validate the possible benefits of NAVIO-assisted UKA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41826745What 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.