header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

DO TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTIES PERFORMED WITH ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE HAVE BETTER PROM SCORES AT SIX MONTHS POST SURGERY WHEN COMPARED WITH TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTIES PERFORMED WITH CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENTATION?

The New Zealand Orthopaedic Association and the Australian Orthopaedic Association (NZOA AOA) Combined Annual Scientific Meeting, Christchurch, New Zealand, 31 October – 3 November 2022. Part 1 of 2.



Abstract

In this study we compare survivorship and patient reported outcome measures in robotically assisted versus conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA).

This paper investigates the hypothesis that implant survival and PROMS following THAs performed with robotic assistance were not different to outcomes following conventional THAs.

Data included all patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis between 19 April 2016 and 31 December 2020. Analysis of PROMS outcomes was restricted to those who had completed PROMS data preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively.

There were 157,647 procedures, including 3567 robotically assisted procedures, available for comparison of revision rates. 4557 procedures, including 130 robotically assisted procedures, had PROMS data available. The revision rate of primary THA performed with robotic assistance was not statistically different from THA performed by conventional methods (4 year cumulative percent revision 3.1% v 2.7%; HR = 1.05, p=0.67). The Oxford Hip Score, VAS for pain and the EQ-VAS score for overall health showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. The EQ-5D Utility Score showed an improved score (median score 1 v 0.88; OR = 1.58, p=0.007) for the robotically assisted group compared to the conventional group.

Robotic assisted THA was not associated with significant improvement in early revision or joint-specific PROMs. The findings may have been biased, in either direction, by unmeasured patient, surgeon, hospital and prosthesis factors. The findings (including the difference in health-related quality of life) may have also been influenced by lack of blinding. Future research should include methods to minimise these biases.


Email: