Lateral robotic‐assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty shows excellent early to mid‐term survivorship, satisfaction and joint‐specific outcome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis (OA) is less common, technically demanding and is potentially associated with an increased revision risk relative to total knee arthroplasty. This review aimed to assess survivorship, complications and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of robotic-assisted (RA) lateral UKA. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken and registered with PROSPERO and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data search was performed through PubMed and Google Scholar in May 2025 using set search phrases. Studies in the English language relating to lateral RAUKA and commenting upon PROMs, satisfaction, survivorship and/or complications were included. RESULTS: . Eleven studies (597 patients) reported survivorship, with an overall rate of 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.1 to 99.8) at a mean follow-up of 53.4 months, which ranged from 99.4% at ≤5 years to 97.6% at ≥5 years. Seven studies (640 patients) reported Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, which improved from a mean of 43.2 preoperatively to 85.9 postoperatively (mean difference 42.7, p < 0.001), with improvements maintained beyond 2 years. Seven studies (243 patients) reported Forgotten Joint Score-12, which increased from 15.2 to 74.0 (mean difference 58.8, p < 0.001). Eight studies reported the level of satisfaction, which was 95.4% (95% CI: 92.9 to 97.4). Causes for revision included infection (n = 3), aseptic loosening (n = 1), pain (n = 4) and progression of OA in medial/patellofemoral compartments (n = 4). CONCLUSION: Lateral RAUKA demonstrated excellent mid-term survivorship, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs and a high level of patient satisfaction (95%). However, the available evidence was limited by modest cohort sizes, heterogeneous study designs and relatively short follow-ups, highlighting the need for larger long-term prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.