ReviewOrthopaedic surgery2026
Robotic Assisted Versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic 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
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) aims to enhance the precision and reproducibility of implant positioning compared with manual UKA (mUKA). This systematic review and meta-analysis compared radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes between rUKA and mUKA.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science (July 2025) for comparative studies of rUKA and mUKA, in line with the PRISMA statement. Data were pooled using random-effects models, with effect sizes expressed as mean difference (MD), standardized mean change (SMC), or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThirty-four studies encompassing 68,196 UKAs (22,585 robotic; 45,611 manual) were included. rUKA demonstrated significantly lower complication (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.99; p = 0.045) and revision rates (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.75; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for rUKA (+16.1 min; 95% CI 10.8-21.4), while length of stay trended shorter (MD -0.2 days; p = 0.44). rUKA was associated with greater functional outcomes, including higher KSS Knee (MD 2.49; p = 0.007), KSS Function (MD 2.33; p = 0.008), and Oxford Knee Score (SMC 1.06; p = 0.049). Radiographically, rUKA yielded lower tibial slope deviation (MD -1.75°; p < 0.001) and reduced variability in tibial slope and hip-knee-ankle alignment.
conclusionrUKA may offer benefit compared to mUKA across radiographic precision, complications, revisions, and functional outcomes, though high heterogeneity in study design and the absence of UKA-specific minimal clinically important difference thresholds limits the relevance of any rUKA benefit at present. Further large, multicenter, and methodologically robust studies are needed to confirm long-term results and better define the role of rUKA in clinical practice.
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.