ArticleJB & JS open access
Impact of Robotic Assistance and Fixation Type on Revisions, Complications, and Survivorship Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With the increasing adoption of both cementless fixation and robotic-assisted techniques in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), it is important to recognize that these approaches carry distinct historical concerns. Earlier generations of cementless implants were associated with higher early failure rates due to inadequate osseointegration, while early robotic systems faced criticism for increased operative times and complication risk. As a result, the current literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the impact of these technologies on early complications and revision rates. This study compares the reoperation rates across 4 TKA cohorts, cemented vs. cementless, with and without robotic assistance. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national administrative claims database. Primary TKA cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology codes, and 4 cohorts were created: robotic-cemented (R-CEMENT), robotic-cementless (R-CEMENTLESS), conventional-cemented (C-CEMENT), and conventional-cementless (C-CEMENTLESS). Matching was performed based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, obesity, tobacco use, and diabetes, resulting in 5,210 patients in each group. Outcomes assessed included 1-, 5-, and 10-year ipsilateral reoperations, 30-day emergency department utilizations, and 10-year failure-free survival. χ Results: In the matched cohort (n = 20,840, C-CEMENTLESS, C-CEMENT, R-CEMENTLESS, R-CEMENT; n = 5,210 each), 1-year reoperation rates were lowest in C-CEMENTLESS (0.44%) and R-CEMENTLESS (0.52%), followed by R-CEMENT (0.84%) and C-CEMENT (0.92%) (p = 0.005). At 5 and 10 years, reoperation rates remained lowest in C-CEMENTLESS (0.79%) and R-CEMENTLESS (1.02%), compared with higher rates in C-CEMENT (1.86%) and R-CEMENT (1.71%) (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival showed 99.7% 5-year survivorship in C-CEMENTLESS and R-CEMENTLESS, versus 99.5% in both cemented groups (p-value < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in 30-day ED utilization (p = 0.11) or readmissions (p = 0.75) across all 4 matched cohorts. Conclusion: Cementless fixation in TKA, whether robotic or conventional, demonstrated comparable short-term reoperation rates and equivalent long-term survivorship to cemented fixation. Robotic assistance did not significantly affect failure-free survival or healthcare utilization. All 4 cohorts showed excellent 10-year outcomes.
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.