ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparative study on the performance and early clinical outcomes of senior and junior orthopaedic surgeons in traditional versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The differential impact of robotic assistance on surgeons with varying levels of experience in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains underexplored. This retrospective study investigated whether robotic-assisted THA (RA-THA) differentially affects the surgical performance and early clinical outcomes of senior versus junior surgeons compared to manual THA (M-THA). A total of 211 patients who underwent primary THA were divided into four groups based on surgeon seniority (senior, with > 10 years of experience vs. junior, with < 2 years of experience) and surgical technique (RA-THA vs. M-THA). All six participating surgeons (three senior, three junior) completed standardized robotic training before performing RA-THA. Perioperative parameters, radiographic outcomes, and one-month clinical follow-up data were analyzed. The results demonstrated a significant effect with use of robotic assistance, which differed slightly based on seniority level. For junior surgeons, RA-THA dramatically elevated their performance to the level of senior experts. While junior surgeons in the M-THA group exhibited significant variability, with a lower rate of acetabular cups placed within the Lewinnek safe zone (79.2%) andless precise restoration of leg length and offset, robotic assistance enabled them to achieveresults similar to senior surgeonsfor these parameters, including a safe zone attainment rate of 94.2%. RA-THA further improvedthe precision of senior surgeons (safe zone rate from 88.7% to 94.3%) but at the cost of significantly prolonged operative time, with no observable advantage in early functional outcomes or complications. Notably, early clinical outcomes at one month were insignificant across all groups, suggesting that the precision benefits of RA-THA may require longer follow-up to fully elucidate .Ultimately RA-THA serves as a powerful equalizer between tiers of surgical experience, effectively enabling junior surgeons toclosely replicate the technical precision of their senior counterparts. For senior surgeons, the technology offers marginaltechnical benefit at the expense of efficiency, potentiallycreating barriers to adoption. These findings suggest that the value proposition of RA-THA should be tailored to surgeon seniority, prioritizing its use for training novice surgeons and managing complex cases.
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.