Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparison of accuracy of acetabular cup placement using manual versus robotic-assistance in the same patient cohort undergoing robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate acetabular component orientation is essential for restoring biomechanics and implant longevity in total hip arthroplasty (THA). While robotic assistance has been shown to improve component positioning, comparisons across patient cohorts remain confounded by inter-patient variability. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of manual versus robotic acetabular cup impaction using an intra-patient sequential design within the same joint. A prospective observational study was undertaken with 100 robotic-assisted THA (with Mako robotic arm). Following CT-based preoperative planning, a trial acetabular cup was manually impacted and its orientation recorded using intraoperative stereotactic tracking. The trial was then removed, and the definitive cup was implanted using robotic assistance. Deviation from planned patient-specific cup inclination and anteversion was estimated. Overall, the mean age was 44.4 ± 16.1 years, and 71% were males. The mean absolute deviation in anteversion was 4.71 ± 4.210 for manual impaction and 0.93 ± 0.970 for robotic impaction (p < 0.001). The deviation in inclination was 3.5 ± 4.00 with manual and 0.94 ± 1.330 with robotic placement (p < 0.001). Agreement analysis demonstrated that robotic placement had narrower limits and lower bias in cup orientation accuracy compared to manual placement. Robotic-assisted THA achieved significantly greater accuracy and consistency in acetabular cup orientation compared with manual impaction under identical anatomical conditions. While intraoperative precision was improved, further long-term studies are required to determine whether this translates into superior clinical outcomes and implant survivorship.
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.