ArticleSICOT-J2026
Functional versus mechanical alignment in robotic primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
introductionFunctional alignment (FA) has emerged as a robot-enabled, patient-specific strategy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), aiming to individualize component positioning and knee balance within predefined safety limits. However, whether robotic FA provides clinically meaningful advantages over robotic mechanical alignment (MA) remains uncertain. This meta-analysis compared robotic FA versus robotic MA in primary TKA.
methodsMedline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to December 29, 2025, for comparative studies evaluating FA versus MA in robotic primary TKA. Outcomes included additional soft-tissue release, reported knee motion, Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), 1-year functional score improvement using Oxford Knee Score or converted Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, and operative duration. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios (ORs).
resultsSix studies including 645 TKAs were included. MA was associated with higher odds of requiring additional soft-tissue release compared with FA (OR = 5.38; 95% CI: 2.71 to 10.69; P < 0.00001). FA showed greater early improvement in reported knee motion at ≤6 weeks (MD = -4.64°; 95% CI: -7.07 to -2.21; P = 0.0002), but this difference was no longer significant at 6 months (MD = -1.13°; 95% CI: -8.24 to 5.98; P = 0.76). FJS-12 scores were similar at 3 months but favored FA at 6 months (MD = -10.74; 95% CI: -13.65 to -7.83; P < 0.00001), although this did not reach the established threshold for clinical importance. Functional score improvement at 1 year was similar between groups. Operative time statistically favored FA, although the difference was small.
conclusionRobotic FA was associated with fewer soft-tissue releases and greater early improvement in reported knee motion, but these early advantages did not translate into superior functional improvement by 1 year. Longer-term standardized comparative studies are required.
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.