ArticlePloS one2026
In-hospital outcomes and hospital charges after robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: A 2016-2022 Nationwide Inpatient Sample study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: accuracy, clinical outcomes, complications, learning curve and cost-effectiveness: a critical clinical review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty has been adopted to enhance surgical precision, yet contemporary national evidence on clinical and economic outcomes remains limited.
objectiveTo compare in-hospital complications, length of stay, and hospital charges between robotic-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty using recent nationwide data.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2016-2022. Adult elective primary knee arthroplasty admissions were identified; cases with revision procedures or documented coronavirus disease were excluded. Robotic-assisted and conventional procedures were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching on demographics, hospital factors, and comorbidities and year of admission (two cohorts of 173,565 patients each). Outcomes included length of stay, total hospital charges, and major in-hospital complications. Two-sided tests were used with a significance threshold of 0.05.
resultsThe proportion of robotic-assisted procedures increased from 0.7% in 2016 to 14.9% in 2022. After matching, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter mean length of stay (1.9 vs 2.7 days; p < 0.001) and lower rates of several complications. When expressed as relative risks (RR) (risk in conventional TKA divided by risk in robotic-assisted TKA), transfusion (RR 3.7), pneumonia (RR 3.0), pulmonary embolism (RR 2.6), prolonged ventilation (RR 2.1), and deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.8) were all higher in the conventional group (all p < 0.01). Acute kidney injury was marginally more frequent with robotic assistance (relative risk 0.9; p = 0.03). Mean hospital charges were higher for robotic-assisted procedures (US$70,758 vs US$62,618; p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn a large, contemporary national cohort, robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty was associated with fewer in-hospital complications and shorter hospital stays than conventional surgery, while incurring higher hospital charges. These findings support a potential safety advantage for robotic assistance during the index admission and motivate further study of longer-term clinical and economic outcomes. Levels of Evidence: LEVEL III.
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.