ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Radiographic accuracy of implant positioning in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, does an imageless robotic system make a difference?
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted technologies and evolving implant designs have been introduced in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of component positioning. However, the relative contribution of robotic assistance compared with conventional instrumentation to radiographic outcomes in experienced, high-volume centers remains unclear.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 96 consecutive medial UKAs performed at a single high-volume institution. Patients were stratified into three groups: Journey I UKA implanted with NAVIO imageless robotic assistance (n = 38), Journey II Uni UKA implanted using conventional instrumentation (n = 27), and Journey II UK UKA implanted with CORI imageless robotic assistance (n = 31). Standardized standing long-leg weight-bearing radiographs were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Radiographic evaluation included hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, femoral component coronal angle (FCCA), tibial component coronal angle (TCCA), and sagittal alignment parameters. Tibial coronal alignment was interpreted according to the Cartier metaphyseal alignment philosophy. Intergroup comparisons were performed using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsBaseline demographic characteristics and preoperative radiographic parameters were comparable among the three groups (all p > 0.05). Postoperative mean HKA was 177.1° ± 2.1° in the Journey I NAVIO group, 177.3° ± 2.5° in the Journey II Uni conventional group, and 177.7° ± 2.2° in the Journey II UK CORI group, with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.56). Femoral and tibial component coronal alignment, including TCCA, showed no significant intergroup differences. All cases across the three cohorts were within predefined safe zones for HKA, FCCA, and TCCA. Sagittal alignment parameters were also comparable between groups.
conclusionIn a high-volume center adopting a consistent alignment philosophy, medial UKA achieves equivalent and highly accurate radiographic outcomes regardless of robotic assistance or conventional instrumentation.
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.