ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Cost-analysis of total knee arthroplasty with robot-assisted surgery versus conventional approach.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) volume is rising, and robotic assistance is promoted for greater precision and faster recovery; however, cost data from Romania remain limited. This retrospective cohort study analysis examined 400 consecutive primary TKAs: 100 robotic-assisted (rTKA) and 300 manual (mTKA). Outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), 90-day events, and total in-hospital costs broken down by category. Cost determinants were explored using LASSO with cross-validation and corroborated by ordinary least squares models. rTKA was associated with longer OR time (103.55 ± 23.92 vs. 80.29 ± 17.53 min) and longer LOS (5.99 ± 1.46 vs. 4.79 ± 1.35 days). The subvastus approach correlated with shorter LOS. Hospitalization costs reflected the interplay of perioperative care and institutional practice rather than the surgical approach alone: higher expenditures tracked most strongly with ward medications and sanitary materials, robotic use itself, longer OR time, and ICU consumables, whereas the subvastus approach tended to lower costs. Model fit was moderate. Within 90 days, rTKA had one non-injurious fall unrelated to implant stability; mTKA had two wound dehiscences (one readmission) and one transient stiffness that resolved with rehabilitation. In this setting, rTKA was associated with higher hospitalization costs despite low early complication rates in both groups. Improving specific steps before, during, and after surgery could reduce the extra costs of robotic TKA without harming results. To know the true value, larger multi-hospital studies with longer follow-up, detailed cost breakdowns, and patient-reported outcomes are needed.
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.