Robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty (RAJA) has emerged as a technological advancement aimed at improving implant positioning and surgical precision. While conventional total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains the standard of care, it is subject to limitations in accuracy and consistency related to surgeon experience and manual techniques. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence comparing robotic-assisted and conventional arthroplasty, focusing on total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA). Sources include randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies published over the past decade. Key domains analyzed were component alignment, clinical outcomes, operative metrics, complication rates, and technological trends. Modern semi-active robotic platforms (MAKO, ROSA, CORI) demonstrate improved accuracy in implant positioning and soft-tissue balancing compared to manual techniques. Evidence supports reduced alignment outliers and improved radiographic parameters. However, short- to mid-term clinical outcomes such as pain relief, range of motion, and patient-reported scores are generally equivalent between robotic and conventional methods. Robotic procedures are associated with longer operative times and higher costs, although the learning curve is relatively short and workflow efficiency improves with experience. Long-term outcome superiority remains unproven. RAJA offers greater surgical precision and reproducibility, potentially enhancing early recovery metrics and reducing technical variability. However, the lack of definitive long-term clinical benefits and the economic burden of implementation require cautious, case-specific adoption. Integration of artificial intelligence, personalized planning, and 3D printing may further enhance the value of robotic arthroplasty in the future.