Cutting through infection risk: robotic-assisted vs. conventional total knee replacement surgery - a meta-analysis.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
Epub Ahead of Print
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025 01-Mar:. 10.1007/s00402-025-05816-wStudy Summary
Eight studies including 758 453 knees undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic-assisted total knee replacement (RA-TKR) versus conventional total knee replacement (C-TKR). Pooled outcomes of interest included overall surgical site infection (SSI), deep infection, superficial infection, and pin-site infection within 12 months. Overall, SSI rates were low and comparable between RA-TKR and C-TKR, with no statistically significant differences in deep infections or superficial/pin-site infections. RA-TKR also demonstrated low infection risk compared with conventional techniques, suggesting that both approaches are safe with respect to perioperative infection.
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
Are you affiliated with one of our partner associations?
Click here to gain complimentary access as part your association member benefits!