Robot vs surgeon: which knee replacement works better?

NCT ID NCT07201207

Not yet recruiting Disease control Sponsor: Satakunta Central Hospital Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jun 24, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

This study compares robotic-assisted knee replacement to the traditional manual method in 170 adults aged 50-80 with end-stage knee arthritis. Participants are randomly assigned to one of the two surgeries and followed for 2 years to measure knee function, recovery speed, and cost, with a 10-year check for complications. The goal is to see if robotic guidance leads to better outcomes and fewer problems.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (MAKO) vs manual total knee arthroplasty
What this could lead to: If robotic-assisted knee replacement proves better, it could lead to improved function, faster recovery, and fewer complications for people with severe knee arthritis.
What could go wrong: This is a single-center trial with 170 participants, so results may not apply to everyone. The difference between methods might be small, and robotic surgery is more expensive.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

osteoarthritis, knee

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.