Table 1 Results of accuracy in robotic-assisted UKA

Kwon et al. [62] 2019

Mako

III

During passive flexion, the mean values both before and after insertion of the implant were lower in goniometer group than in robot group.

Batailler et al. [40] 2019

Navio

III

rUKA has a lower rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers both in lateral and medial UKA, compared to conventional technique.

Iñiguez et al. [63] 2019

Navio

IV

MDFA and MPTA were significant difference with median of 1.07° vs. 0.12° and 1.28° vs. 1.3° respectively

Deese et al. [12] 2018

Mako

III

Robotic-arm assisted surgery is reported to improve the accuracy of implant placement.

Motesharei et al. [50] 2018

Mako

II

rUKA achieved a higher knee excursion (18.0° ± 4.9°) compared to the manual group (15.7° ± 4.1°), leading to not only better implant alignment but also some kinematic benefits to the user during walk.

Khare et al. [64] 2018

Navio

IV

rUKA system offers significant improvement in the femoral and tibial implant placement compared with conventional UKA system.

kayani et al. [49] 2018

Mako

III

rUKA improved accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning.

Gaudiani et al. [39] 2017

Mako

III

Posterior tibial slope was lower after rUKA compared to the native knee (4.91° vs. 2.28°, p < 0.0001).

Herry et al. [40] 2017

Navio

III

Restitution of joint-line height was improved with robotic-assisted group compared to the control group.

MacCallum et al. [46] 2016

Mako

III

Tibial coronal positioning was more accurate with robotic-arm-assisted (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0.0001).

Bell et al. [38] 2016

Mako

II

MAKO-assisted UKA lead to improved accuracy of femoral and tibial component positioning, except for tibial coronal position.

Lonner et al. [36] 2015

Navio

IV

The image-free robotic devices achieved accurate implementation of the surgical plan with small errors in implant placement.

Mofidi et al. [31] 2014

Mako

III

Robotic-assisted medial UKA results in an average difference of 2.2° ± 1.7° to 3.6° ± 3.3°, inaccuracy may be attributed to suboptimal cementing technique.

Citak et al. [65] 2013

Mako

IV

UKA was more precise using a semi-active robotic system with dynamic bone tracking technology compared to the manual technique.

Plate et al. [44] 2013

Mako

III

rUKA allows ligament balancing with an accuracy of up to 0.53 mm, being 1 mm in 83% of cases.

Smith et al. [31] 2013

Navio

IV

The freehand sculpting tool was shown to produce accurate implant placement with small errors which are comparable to those reported by other robotic assistive devices on the market for UKA.

Karia et al. [66] 2013

Mako

IV

Robotic assistance enabled surgeons to achieve better precision and accuracy when positioning UKA components irrespective of their experience.

Becker et al. [67] 2012

KUKA

IV

The natural knee stability in antero-posterior translation and rotation can be preserved in rUKA.

Dunbar et al. [68] 2012

Mako

III

Implant placement errors were comparable between tactile robotics and rigid stereotactic fixation.

Pearle et al. [69] 2010

Mako

III

Haptic guidance in combination with a navigation module allows the planned and intraoperative tibio-femoral angle was within 1° and postoperative long leg axis radiographs were within 1.6° in UKA.

Lonner et al. [37] 2010

Mako

III

Tibial component alignment is more accurate and less variable using robotic arm assistance than manual instrumentation.

Cobb et al. [6] 2006

Acrobot

II

All the Acrobot cases have limb alignment in the coronal plane within 2° of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy.

Rodriguez et al. [70] 2005

Acrobot

II

All of robotic cases were implanted with tibio-femoral alignment on the coronal plane within ±2° of the planned position.