ArticleCureus2026
Robotic Versus Conventional Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Achievement of Minimal Clinically Important Difference at One-Year Follow-Up.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. However, conventional jig-based TKA (C-TKA) techniques often lack reproducibility in achieving balanced flexion-extension gaps and consistent mediolateral ligament tension. Robotic-assisted TKA (R-TKA) has emerged as a potential solution to improve accuracy in prosthesis positioning, gap balancing, and soft tissue management. This study compared R-TKA and C-TKA using validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including KOOS JR (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement), PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Physical Health (PH), and PROMIS Mental Health (MH), to evaluate achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent primary TKA. Preoperative and one-year postoperative scores for KOOS JR, PROMIS PH, and PROMIS MH were analyzed. MCID achievement was defined using the distribution-based method.
resultsBoth R-TKA and C-TKA groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements across all PROMs. At the one-year follow-up, 100% of patients in both cohorts achieved the MCID for the KOOS JR score. Similarly, high rates of MCID achievement were observed for PROMIS PH and PROMIS MH in both groups. While the R-TKA group showed a higher percentage improvement in KOOS JR scores compared to the C-TKA group, the differences between the two techniques were not statistically significant.
conclusionBoth R-TKA and C-TKA result in excellent clinical outcomes and high rates of MCID achievement at one year. While R-TKA showed a trend toward greater functional improvement in joint-specific measures, it did not demonstrate statistical superiority over conventional methods in this cohort.
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.