ArticleBone & joint open2026
Does integrating pelvic tilt change from sitting to standing in functional 3D planning enhance early complications of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty?
Article in Bone & joint open, 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 arthroplasty paradox: the disconnect between precision and patient-perceived outcomes.Bone & joint open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: While robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves implant positioning accuracy, it often overlooks dynamic lumbopelvic parameters, such as pelvic tilt changes between sitting and standing. These factors are increasingly recognized as critical in preventing early complications, such as impingement and dislocation. The aim was to determine whether integrating pelvic tilt variations into functional 3D planning reduces complications and improves outcomes following THA. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 656 patients underwent robotic-assisted THA using either conventional CT-based planning (V3) or functional kinematic-based planning (V4). The V4 group incorporated lumbopelvic kinematics, specifically pelvic tilt in seated and standing positions, into implant planning via a collision model. Outcomes at ≥ one year included complication rates (dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, reoperations) and functional outcomes (visual analogue scale, Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score). Results: Compared with V3, the V4 group had significantly fewer overall complications (2.8% vs 8.4%, p = 0.007), no dislocations (0% vs 1.7%, p = 0.048), and fewer reoperations (p = 0.017). Reoperation-free survival at two years was higher in the V4 group (97.2% vs 94.1%). Functional outcomes were significantly improved across all scores, with more patients achieving patient acceptable symptom state thresholds (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, functional planning (V4) was the only independent protective factor against reoperation, while age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking, approach, and insert type were not significantly associated. Conclusion: Functional planning that incorporates the kinematics of the lumbopelvic complex (V4) was the only independent protective factor against reoperation, highlighting the importance of integrating lumbopelvic dynamics into robotic-assisted THA.
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.