ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Clinical and mechanical outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of 163,516 patients.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) achieves good overall outcomes, yet 15-30% of patients remain dissatisfied, often attributed in part to variability in implant positioning and soft-tissue balance. Robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) aims to improve intraoperative accuracy, but its real-world association with postoperative healthcare utilization and mid-term mechanical outcomes remains uncertain at scale. This study compared 90-day utilization and complication outcomes and 2-year mechanical outcomes of RA-TKA versus conventional TKA (C-TKA) in a large, national propensity-matched cohort.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX US Collaborative Network to evaluate outcomes following primary TKA among adults undergoing TKA between January 2018 and January 2023. Patients receiving RA-TKA were identified and 1:1 propensity-matched to C-TKA patients based on demographics and comorbidities. Primary outcomes were 90-day inpatient hospitalization encounter and 90-day opioid prescription fill. Secondary outcomes included 2-year mechanical outcomes (revision TKA and mechanical loosening diagnoses). Analyses were performed within TriNetX using built-in propensity matching and risk ratio calculations with 95% confidence intervals. After propensity score matching, covariate balance was assessed using standardized mean differences, with values < 0.10 indicating acceptable balance.
resultsPSM analysis yielded 6,176 pairs of RA-TKA and C-TKA patients (mean age 65.3 ± 8.6 years; 37.5% female; BMI 32.1 ± 8.7). RA-TKA was associated with lower 90-day inpatient hospitalization encounters (4.0% vs. 5.7%, RR 0.69; p < 0.001) and fewer opioid prescription fills (78.4% vs. 85.8%, RR 0.91; p < 0.001). Early medical and surgical complication rates were similar between groups (all p > 0.05). At 2 years, RA-TKA demonstrated lower rates of revision (1.3% vs. 2.2%, RR 0.58; p < 0.001) and mechanical loosening diagnoses (0.28% vs. 0.78%, RR 0.35; p < 0.001), with no difference in manipulation under anesthesia (3.26% vs. 3.22%, p = 0.919).
conclusionIn this large propensity-matched national cohort, RA-TKA was associated with lower 90-day inpatient hospitalization encounters and opioid prescription fills, and lower coded revision and loosening outcomes at 2 years, while early complication rates were similar. These findings should be interpreted as associations given the use of administrative coding and unmeasured confounding.
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.