ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Improved Accuracy With a Novel Imageless Robotic-Assisted System Versus Manual Instrumentation in Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
Background: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a highly effective procedure for patients with end-stage single compartment osteoarthritis resulting in faster recovery and improved patient outcomes than total knee arthroplasty. However, higher revision rates remain a concern, contributing to increased utilization of robotic-assisted systems to support more accurate implant placement with the goal of reducing the most common reasons for revision. Methods: This study aimed to compare the resection accuracy of a robotic-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual instrumentation (mUKA) in a controlled cadaveric study. Six surgeons performed bilateral UKA on 40 cadaveric specimens; rUKA on 1 leg and mUKA on the other. The specimens were computed tomography scanned preprocedure and postprocedure with the achieved resection angles compared to the planned. Resection depth accuracy was assessed by measuring the resected bone (with a caliper) accounting for the saw blade thickness. Results: The robotic-assisted UKA was found to have significantly greater accuracy for the angle of the resections than mUKA including tibial varus/valgus, tibial posterior slope, femoral varus/valgus, flexion/extension, and internal/external rotation. Both mUKA and rUKA procedures were found to have a high level of accuracy for the hip-knee-ankle angle and bone resection depths. rUKA had significantly fewer outliers than mUKA for the femur flexion/extension, internal/external rotation, tibial varus/valgus, and tibial flexion/extension. Conclusions: The rUKA demonstrated increased accuracy of the angle of resections compared to mUKA which may support increased consistency and reproducibility of the UKA procedure.
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.