ArticleBone & joint research2026
Laser scanning registration for knee arthroplasty.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Accurate registration of anatomy is fundamental to robotic and computer-assisted surgery; however, conventional methods rely on manual data acquisition performed by the surgeon using a tracked probe that is slow and affected by operator variability. Limitations of manual methods have hindered wider adoption of surgical navigation despite its benefits for alignment accuracy, particularly in orthopaedic applications. This study evaluates a laser surface scanning system, LumaScan, against standard intraoperative probe-based registration with a controlled phantom knee model. Methods: Surgeons performed repeated probe-based data acquisition for registration, while LumaScan executed operator-initiated scans mounted to a robotic arm. The accuracy of each modality was assessed using root mean square (RMS) error relative to a CT-derived reference model, alongside evaluations of repeatability and acquisition time. Results: LumaScan achieved a RMS error of 0.07 mm (SD 0.02), compared to probe-based methods, which resulted in a RMS error of 0.34 mm (SD 0.36). Acquisition time was reduced from 112 seconds (SD 75.8) manually to 6.38 seconds (SD 0.03) for LumaScan (p < 0.001), with probe-based timing increasing three times from the fastest to the slowest participant despite a fixed protocol. The errors of the femur and tibia achieved by LumaScan had a > 70% reduction compared to manual surface acquisition, with these results being statistically significant (p < 0.001). The results demonstrate that robotic laser scanning can significantly improve speed, accuracy, and precision over manual methods. Minimizing operator influence and standardizing registration has the potential to reduce error sources that persist in clinical workflows, subsequently accelerating the integration of navigation and robotics into routine orthopaedic procedures. Conclusion: LumaScan enables faster, more accurate, and more precise anatomical registration than manual methods.
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.