United States
A new study, reported in the September 2026 issue of the British Medical Journal, questions whether there is any clear been benefit supporting the rapid expansion of robotic-assisted joint replacement surgery in the U.K.
The resesarchers found the “risk of implant failure” — defined as needing a revision — was identical for conventional and robotic-assisted surgery and, in their opinion, does not justify the higher costs of the robotics trend.
The study analyzed the outcomes of more than 87,000 knee replacement patients and 49,00 hip replacement patients in the U.K.’s National Joint Registry who had surgery between January 2018 and December 2024. For the knee replacement group, patients with both full and partial replacement surgerie were included.
The study focused on “implant survival” by assessing how many patients required a surgical revision surgery after the initial procedure; they found the type of procedure did not affect the outcome in either knee or hip patients:
“These results highlight the importance of careful evaluation of robotic technology in publicly funded healthcare systems, given the substantially higher capital and procedural costs involved.”
The study is currently undergoing peer review.
The resesarchers found the “risk of implant failure” — defined as needing a revision — was identical for conventional and robotic-assisted surgery and, in their opinion, does not justify the higher costs of the robotics trend.
The study analyzed the outcomes of more than 87,000 knee replacement patients and 49,00 hip replacement patients in the U.K.’s National Joint Registry who had surgery between January 2018 and December 2024. For the knee replacement group, patients with both full and partial replacement surgerie were included.
The study focused on “implant survival” by assessing how many patients required a surgical revision surgery after the initial procedure; they found the type of procedure did not affect the outcome in either knee or hip patients:
- For knee replacement surgery, the researchers found that the five-year implant survival of the conventional group was 98.5% while the matched robotic TKR group was 98.6%.
- For hip replacement surgery, the analysis did show robotic assistance was associated with slightly fewer revisions for mal-positioned implants, however the absolute difference in revisions was extremely small — the five-year implant survival of the conventional THR group was 98.6%, while the matched robotic group was 98.8%
“These results highlight the importance of careful evaluation of robotic technology in publicly funded healthcare systems, given the substantially higher capital and procedural costs involved.”
The study is currently undergoing peer review.
