ReviewZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2026
[Interpretation of the 2026 Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus on Robotic-assisted Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: From precise execution to individualized decision-making].
Review in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive 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
In 2026, the Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) published the Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus on Robotic-assisted Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, comprising 18 consensus statements. The corresponding author of this article participated in the whole process of consensus formulation. This article interprets the main recommendations according to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). For TKA, robotic assistance improves the accuracy of bone resection, implant positioning, and alignment, and provides quantitative support for individualized alignment and pre-resection soft-tissue balancing; however, optimal alignment and balancing targets and their long-term clinical benefits remain uncertain. For THA, robotic assistance improves acetabular cup positioning and reconstruction of limb length and offset. Current evidence does not indicate an increased risk of infection, but reductions in dislocation or revision have not been demonstrated, and functional planning requires further validation. For UKA, robotic assistance reduces technical variation, and some clinical studies and registry data suggest possible improvements in functional outcomes and revision risk, although interpretation is influenced by patient selection and platform differences. Safe implementation also depends on structured training, the ability to troubleshoot and convert safely when necessary, and platform-specific long-term registries. Future studies should clarify which patients are most likely to benefit, what reconstruction targets should be selected, and whether technical precision translates into durable clinical value.
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.