ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: does improved precision translate into better clinical outcomes? A systematic review.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
purposeRobot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) is being adopted progressively because of its potential to improve implant positioning and restore hip biomechanics more accurately than conventional techniques. However, whether these technical advantages translate into meaningful clinical benefits remains uncertain. This systematic review compared robot-assisted and conventional THA regarding implant positioning, restoration of hip biomechanics, functional outcomes, and complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched for comparative studies published between 2015 and September 2025 evaluating robot-assisted versus conventional THA. After applying predefined eligibility criteria, 13 studies were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS and RoB 2 tools, and findings were synthesized qualitatively.
resultsRobot-assisted THA was consistently associated with greater accuracy of acetabular component placement within established safe zones and more precise restoration of limb length. Functional outcomes were inconsistent across studies, with no clear evidence of superior patient-reported outcomes or overall clinical benefit. Several studies reported lower rates of dislocation and reoperation following robot-assisted THA, although differences in overall complication rates were less consistent.
conclusionsRobot-assisted THA improves the accuracy of implant positioning and better reproduces the preoperative surgical plan than conventional THA. However, these technical advantages have not translated into superior functional outcomes in the short to medium term. Longer-term studies are needed to determine their impact on implant survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828722What 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.