ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Early revision rate in robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study 2021-2023 from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
background and purposeRobotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been proposed to improve component positioning but evidence on its effect on implant survival is limited. We aimed to compare implant survival between rTKA and conventional total knee arthroplasty (cTKA) overall and due to peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI).
methodsWe included all rTKAs performed in Finland from April 2021 until May 2023, all implanted with Triathlon TKA using MAKO robotic-arm assist. Propensity score matching was used to form a control group with similar characteristics for the same time period. Primary survival endpoint was first revision due to any cause within 12 months after the index surgery. PJI and non-PJI revisions were considered secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess implant survival and between-group contrasts hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively.
results1,318 fixed bearing rTKAs were compared with a control group of 1,318 cTKAs. Revision-free survival at 12 months after index surgery did not differ between groups. KM estimates were 99.1% (CI 98.5-99.7) for rTKA and 98.6% (CI 98.0-99.3) for cTKA with HR 0.61 (CI 0.28-1.34). The rTKA group demonstrated better PJI-free survival at 12 months (HR 0.29, CI 0.10-0.90). Overall, PJI was the most common reason for revision. At the end of available follow-up, the estimated overall survival was 97.7% (CI 94.9-100.0) for rTKA and 97.9% (CI 96.6-99.2) for cTKA.
conclusionNo difference in all-cause revision risk was observed between rTKA and cTKA groups. However, within the first 12 months, fewer revisions due to PJI occurred in the rTKA group.
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.