Overview of approved robotic systems for knee and hip arthroplasty: a narrative review
Year: 2026
Type: review
Abstract: Background and Objective: Robotic assistance in arthroplasty is now embedded in routine practice across many centres, yet information about which platforms are validated, what they can be used for legally, and how they differ technically is dispersed across regulatory notices and heterogeneous clinical reports. This narrative review synthesises PubMed-indexed evidence and primary regulatory sources to provide a comprehensive overview of currently approved systems for knee and hip arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched in August 2025 to identify relevant literature on approved robotic systems for knee and hip arthroplasty. Primary regulatory sources were also consulted to confirm approval status, indications, and technical characteristics. Key Content and Findings: Architectures include active robots that autonomously mill bone, semi-active platforms that constrain surgeons' actions within haptic boundaries or guide saw cuts, and handheld solutions that add motorised control with real-time navigation. Imaging strategies span computed tomography-based planning, imageless intraoperative mapping, and fluoroscopy-guided registration in selected hip and knee applications. Most platforms are closed to the manufacturer's implant ecosystem, while a smaller group operates as open platforms with multi-implant compatibility. Across major markets, approvals are concentrated on total knee arthroplasty, with several systems also cleared for unicondylar knee arthroplasty and one imageless handheld platform carrying a specific indication for selected revision knee procedures. In the hip domain, approvals focus on total hip arthroplasty, and dedicated indications for hip hemiarthroplasty were not identified. Adoption has expanded in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region, supported by evidence of improved radiographic precision and safety broadly comparable to conventional techniques. However, claims of clinical superiority between platforms remain unproven and are confounded by differences in workflows, implants, and learning curves. Conclusions: By consolidating technical characteristics, approved indications, and regulatory status, this review may facilitate the selection, procurement, and implementation of these technologies and inform future work on interoperability, training, and value.
Source: Annals of Joint
Language: English
Subfield: Surgery
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7224096544