ArticleBone & joint open2026
Substantial improvement in short-term survivorship in patients receiving robotic arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been shown to improve alignment and accuracy of component placement compared with conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (C-UKA). Despite this, there is conflicting evidence for whether this has an impact on revision rates. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database, comparing patients who underwent R-UKA using the Stryker Restoris MCK implant with those who underwent C-UKA using the cemented Oxford Partial Knee implant, between January 2002 and December 2024 at The Prince Charles Hospital (Brisbane, Australia), with a minimum six-month follow-up. Patient selection for UKA mirrored the recommendations by Kozinn and Scott. The primary outcome of interest was to compare the all-cause revision rate between these two groups. Secondary outcomes of interest were to compare hospital length of stay (HLOS), surgical duration, the odds of superficial surgical site infection, and the odds of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) between the same groups. The analysis of individual outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and primary surgeon grade. Results: The hazard of all-cause revision significantly decreased by 78% in the R-UKA group as compared with the C-UKA group (p = 0.046). HLOS was also significantly shorter by 2.2 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.3) in the R-UKA group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the surgical duration (p = 0.733), odds of superficial surgical site infection (p = 0.845), nor in the odds of PJI (p = 0.415) between the two groups. Conclusion: The substantial improvement in revision outcomes suggests that R-UKA is the option of choice for managing symptomatic unicompartmental knee arthritis in carefully selected patients with isolated medial compartmental osteoarthritis, especially in the hands of low-volume surgeons. Decreased HLOS should be interpreted with caution, given the non-contemporaneous nature of the two cohorts.
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.