ArticleSICOT-J2026
Pilot study comparing operating room workflow and team ergonomics in robotic-assisted versus navigated total knee arthroplasty.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted systems have been developed to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While outcomes have been widely studied, the effects of these systems on intraoperative workflow and surgical team workload have received less attention. The aim of this study was to compare procedural setup, efficiency, workload, and ergonomics between the VELYS robotic-assisted solution (VRAS) and computer-navigated TKA (NAVI).
methodsTwenty patients who underwent primary TKA performed by a single surgeon, using a single implant type, were enrolled in this research (10VRAS, 10NAVI). Procedural efficiency was assessed by reference to an AI-backed process digital twin platform. Workload was evaluated using NASA-TLX questionnaires, objective ergonomic measures (power tool holding times, retractor holding times, and leg holding times), and a tray analysis.
resultsThe mean total operating room (OR) time was 69.4 min for the VRAS group and 72.9 min for the NAVI group, with no significant difference. The preparation (22 min) and the breakdown times (12.6 vs.11.7 min) were equivalent. The skin-to-skin times averaged 34.3 min for the VRAS group versus 38.9 min for the NAVI group. NASA-TLX scores revealed significantly lower mental, physical, and temporal demands, reduced effort and frustration, and better perceived performance of the surgeon in the VRAS group (p < 0.05). The instrument burden was similar, 5 trays (21.5 kg) for VRAS and 4 trays (20.9 kg) for NAVI. The objective workload was reduced for the VRAS group, with shorter power tool holding (2.7 vs. 7.7 min, p < 0.001), retractor holding (7.8 vs. 13.0 min, p = 0.01), and leg holding times (3.4 vs. 4.7 min, p = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Compared with navigated TKA, robotic assistance did not prolong overall OR time and was associated with lower measured NASA-TLX scores. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted TKA may offer workflow and ergonomic advantages, although further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary observations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, retrospective study.
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.