ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Postoperative outcomes after conventional, robotic-arm-assisted, and pressure-sensor-guided cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
Conventional cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (CR-TKA) uses manual instrumentation and surgeon-directed soft-tissue assessment, whereas MAKO robotic-arm assistance adds geometry- and gap-distance guidance and Verasense pressure sensing adds compartment-load feedback. Whether these approaches are associated with different clinically relevant postoperative outcomes remains uncertain. To evaluate associations between surgical technique and postoperative pain, range of motion, and function across conventional, MAKO-assisted, and Verasense-guided CR-TKA, and explore whether preoperative severity modified associations with postoperative outcomes. The single-centre cohort included 173 knees in 139 patients (36 Conventional, 92 MAKO, 45 Verasense). Analyses proceeded from post hoc favourable change to principal covariate-adjusted postoperative outcomes, followed by post hoc baseline-severity interactions. Principal models adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and body mass index. Knee-level outcomes accounted for within-patient clustering; the Knee Society Function Score was analysed once per patient. Holm correction was applied within each stated test family. No outcome showed a Holm-adjusted group difference in favourable improvement or adjusted postoperative status. Verasense versus MAKO showed greater pain improvement (0.769 points; Holm P = 0.2195) and lower adjusted postoperative pain (-0.318 points; Holm P = 0.2546), but neither met the corrected criterion. Postoperative pain was zero in 125 of 149 knees (83.9%). The Knee Society Function Score severity interaction disappeared within the baseline range shared by all groups. We found no robust evidence that conventional instrumentation, geometry-based MAKO assistance, and load-based Verasense guidance were associated with different postoperative outcomes or that preoperative severity showed a reproducible technique-dependent association with outcomes. The Verasense-versus-MAKO pain pattern was hypothesis-generating and established neither superiority nor equivalence.
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.