During the past decades, robotic-assisted technology has experienced an incredible advancement in the field of total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which demonstrated promise in improving the accuracy and precision of implantation and alignment in both primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, revision TJA remains a technically challenging procedure with issues of large-scale bone defects and damage to nearby anatomical structures. Thus, surgeons are trying to harness the abilities of robotic-assisted technology for revision TJA surgery.

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant publications that reported the application of robotic-assisted technology in revision TJA.

Overall, ten studies reported the use of the robotic system in revision TJA, including active (ROBODOC) and semi-active (MAKO and NAVIO) systems. One clinical case reported conversion from hip fusion to THA, and three studies reported revision from primary THA to revision THA. Moreover, four studies reported that robotic-assisted technology is helpful in revising unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA, and two case reports converted primary TKA to revision TKA. In this study, we present the latest evolvements, applications, and technical obstacles of robotic-assisted technology in the revision of TJA and the current state-of-the-art.

Current available evidence suggests that robotic-assisted technology may help surgeons to reproducibly perform preoperative plans and accurately achieve operative targets during revision TJA. However, concerns remain regarding preoperative metal artifacts, registration techniques, closed software platforms, further bone loss after implant removal, and whether robotic-assisted surgery will improve implant positioning and long-term survivorship.

To determine whether using robots in spine surgery results in more clinical advantages and fewer adverse consequences.

Between October 1990 and October 2022, a computer-based search was conducted through the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, VIP databases, and WAN FANG. The study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery with those of conventional spine surgery. The review was conducted following PRISMA 2020, and AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality. R version 4.2.1 was used in the meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used for evaluating the risk of bias.

This study analyzed 954 participants from 20 RCTs involving cervical spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disease, scoliosis, etc. The robot-assisted group outperformed the freehand group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, number of screws in grade A position, grade A + B position, radiation dose, and hospital stay. Operation duration, visual analog scale scores of low back pain, Oswestry disability index, and radiation exposure time did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Although robotic spine surgery is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than conventional methods, the robot group did not demonstrate an advantage in terms of clinical efficacy. Studies of complications and cost-effectiveness are still very rare.