ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Patient Preferences for Tracker Pin-Related Incision Configurations in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty.
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: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) requires tracker pin placement, which may result in different incision configurations. Although clinical outcomes across pin placement strategies appear comparable, patient preferences regarding incision design remain unclear. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 101 patients with knee osteoarthritis who were recruited consecutively at a tertiary university hospital. Three tracker pin-related incision configurations were presented using standardized lower-limb models: (A) all-inside, consisting of the longest single midline incision; (B) femoral pin in-tibial pin out, consisting of a medium-length midline incision plus two tibial stab incisions; and (C) pin outside, consisting of the shortest midline incision plus four stab incisions. Participants rated each design using a 5-point Likert scale and selected a single preferred option. Cosmetic and recovery concerns were assessed using five Likert-scale items. Results: Postoperative scarring received the highest concern ratings, followed by recovery time, whereas concern about incision length and the number of incisions was lower. Preference scores showed a numerical ranking: all-inside 4.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.0-4.0]; femoral pin in-tibial pin out 3.0 [IQR, 2.0-4.0]; and pin outside 3.0 [IQR, 2.0-3.0], without a statistically significant difference (Friedman χ² = 5.52, P = .063). When selecting a single preferred option, 46.5% chose all-inside, 25.7% femoral pin in-tibial pin out, and 27.7% pin outside. Conclusions: No clear differences in overall preference were observed among the three incision configurations. Preoperative counseling should address expectations regarding scar appearance, wound care, and recovery trajectory rather than emphasizing incision configuration alone in robotic-assisted TKA.
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.