SynthesisBone & joint open2026
Perceptions of robot-assisted arthroplasty among patients and the public : a scoping review.
Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total hip and knee arthroplasty is increasing, offering potential benefits in implant positioning accuracy. However, patient and public perceptions, including concerns and preferences, remain poorly understood. This scoping review aimed to explore the literature on patient and public perceptions of RAS in orthopaedics, identify common themes, assess knowledge gaps, and inform future research priorities. Methods: A five-stage scoping review was undertaken according to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were performed across PubMed, Directory of Open Access Journals, Scopus, and ProQuest Central; Google Scholar and reference lists were also searched. Articles were collated and evaluated against predetermined criteria. Data from included studies were collated to facilitate descriptive and thematic analysis. Results: A total of 16 studies were included, primarily cross-sectional surveys. Four major themes were identified: interest in RAS; understanding regarding RAS; concerns regarding RAS; and influences on preferences and perception. Patients often overestimated the prevalence of use and the benefits of RAS, and based their preferences on marketing or limited information. Trust in surgeons remained a strong influence on patient attitudes. Conclusion: Despite growing patient enthusiasm for RAS, significant gaps in public understanding and perception persist. Many patients held inaccurate beliefs about RAS capabilities and benefits. Future research should focus on creating validated educational tools for patients about RAS, expanding studies across diverse populations, and clarifying the value of RAS. Aligning public perception with clinical and non-clinical evidence is essential for informed consent and ethical surgical innovation.
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.