ArticleBone & joint open2026
Manual versus robotic-assisted revision total knee arthroplasty for instability : a one-year cohort analysis.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a treatment option for failed primary TKA but is associated with higher complication rates and technical challenges. Robotic-assisted rTKA (rarTKA) is an emerging technique that may improve component alignment and surgical precision. However, its effect on early postoperative outcomes in rTKA for instability remains unclear. Methods: A total of 133 consecutive rTKAs for instability (82 manual and 51 robotic) performed by two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. All rarTKAs used the MAKO robotic-arm system. Operating time, length of stay (LOS), joint line change, posterior condylar offset (PCO) change, and all-cause 30-/90-day complications were compared using univariable analyses. Revision implant constructs were also compared. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at three months and one year, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed one-year reoperation-free survival. Results: RarTKA achieved a greater mean increase in PCO (3.4 mm vs 1.5 mm; p = 0.014), but required a longer operating time (186 minutes vs 173 minutes; p = 0.037). Joint line change, LOS, three-month KOOS-JR, and ROM did not differ significantly. The 30-day (4.9% vs 7.8%) and 90-day (7.3% vs 11.8%) complication rates and one-year reoperation-free survival (91.5% vs 94.1%; p = 0.900) were comparable. Although offset couplers were not used, rarTKA constructs incorporated augments more frequently. Conclusion: RarTKA demonstrated early postoperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of conventional manual rTKA, while achieving improved PCO restoration despite longer operating times. LOS, functional outcomes, and one-year survivorship were similar between groups. Overall, rarTKA appears to be safe and effective; however, further investigation is required to determine the long-term benefits and clinical significance.
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.