Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA.

In-hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition following arthroplasty could act as surrogate measures for improvement in patient pathways, and have major cost saving implications for healthcare providers. With the ever-growing adoption of robotic technology in arthroplasty, we wished to evaluate its impact on LOS. The objectives of this study were to compare LOS and discharge disposition following robotic-arm assisted (RO THA) versus conventional technique Total Hip Arthroplasty (CO THA).

This large-scale, single institution study included patients of any age undergoing primary THA (N = 1,732) for any cause between May 2019 and January 2023. Data extracted included patient demographics, LOS, need for Post Anaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) admission, anaesthesia type, readmission within 30 days and discharge dispositions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were also employed to identify factors and patient characteristics related to delayed discharge.

The median LOS in the RO THA group was 54 hours (34, 78) versus 60 (51, 100) in the CO THA group, p<0.001. Discharge disposition was comparable between the two groups. In the multivariate model, age, need for PACU admission, ASA score > 2, female gender, general anaesthesia and utilisation of the conventional technique were significantly associated with LOS > 2 days.

Our study showed that robotic-arm assistance was associated with a shorter LOS in patients undergoing primary THA and no difference in discharge destination. Our results suggest that robotic-arm assistance could be advantageous in partly addressing the upsurge of hip arthroplasty procedures and the concomitant health care burden; however, this needs to be corroborated by long-term cost effectiveness analyses and data from randomised controlled studies.

Accurate cup placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the challenges due to distinctive bone deformity. Robotic-arm assisted system have been developed to improve the accuracy of implant placement. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic-arm assisted (Robo-THA), CT-based navigated (Navi-THA), and manual (M-THA) cup position and orientation in THA for DDH.

A total of 285 patients (335 hips) including 202 M-THAs, 45 Navi-THAs, and 88 Robo-THA were analyzed. The choice of procedure followed the patient's preferences. Horizontal and vertical center of rotation (HCOR and VCOR) were measured for cup position, and radiographic inclination (RI) and anteversion (RA) were measured for cup orientation. The propensity score-matching was performed among three groups to compare the absolute error from the preoperative target position and angle.

Navi-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors than M-THA in RI (3.6° and 5.4°) and RA (3.8° and 6.0°), however, there were no significant differences between them in HCOR (2.5 mm and 3.0 mm) or VCOR (2.2 mm and 2.6 mm). In contrast, Robo-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup position than both M-THA and Navi-THA (HCOR: 1.7 mm and 2.9 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.6 mm and 2.5 mm vs. Navi-THA, VCOR:1.7 mm and 2.4 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.4 mm and 2.2 mm vs. Navi-THA). Robo-THA also showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup orientation than both M-THA and Navi-THA (RI: 1.4° and 5.7°, vs. M-THA, 1.5° and 3.6°, vs. Navi-THA, RA: 1.9° and 5.8° vs. M-THA, 2.1° and 3.8° vs. Navi-THA).

Robotic-arm assisted system showed more accurate cup position and orientation compared to manual and CT-based navigation in THA for DDH. CT-based navigation increased the accuracy of cup orientation compared to manual procedures, but not cup position.

Robotic assisted surgery aims to reduce surgical errors in implant positioning and better restore native hip biomechanics compared to conventional techniques for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual THA versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, cup inclination, cup version, and leg-length correction.

This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the minimally-invasive posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recoded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. Patients in both treatment groups were well-matched for age, gender, body mass index, laterality of surgery, and ASA scores.

Interclass correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84 – 0.95) for intra-observer agreement and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.94) for inter-observer agreement in all study outcomes. Robotic THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native horizontal (p<0.001) and vertical (p<0.001) centres of rotation, and improved preservation of the patient's native combined offset (P<0.001) compared to conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup within the combined safe zones of inclination and anteversion described by Lewinnek et al (p=0.02) and Callanan et al (p=0.01) compared to conventional THA (figures 1–2). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p=0.10).

Robotic-arm assisted THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native centre of rotation, better preservation of the combined offset, and more precise acetabular cup positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared to conventional manual THA.

Robotic-arm assisted THA enables improved preservation of native hip biomechanics compared to conventional manual THA.

For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly: fsh@fareshaddad.net

Aims. Traditionally, acetabular component insertion during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is visually assisted in the posterior approach and fluoroscopically assisted in the anterior approach. The present study examined the accuracy of a new surgeon during anterior (NSA) and posterior (NSP) THA using robotic arm-assisted technology compared to two experienced surgeons using traditional methods. Methods. Prospectively collected data was reviewed for 120 patients at two institutions. Data were collected on the first 30 anterior approach and the first 30 posterior approach surgeries performed by a newly graduated arthroplasty surgeon (all using robotic arm-assisted technology) and was compared to standard THA by an experienced anterior (SSA) and posterior surgeon (SSP). Acetabular component inclination, version, and leg length were calculated postoperatively and differences calculated based on postoperative film measurement. Results. Demographic data were similar between groups with the exception of BMI being lower in the NSA group (27.98 vs 25.2; p = 0.005). Operating time and total time in operating room (TTOR) was lower in the SSA (p < 0.001) and TTOR was higher in the NSP group (p = 0.014). Planned versus postoperative leg length discrepancy were similar among both anterior and posterior surgeries (p > 0.104). Planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were similar among the NSA and SSA (p > 0.425), whereas planned versus postoperative abduction and anteversion were lower in the NSP (p < 0.001). Outliers > 10 mm from planned leg length were present in one case of the SSP and NSP, with none in the anterior groups. There were no outliers > 10° in anterior or posterior for abduction in all surgeons. The SSP had six outliers > 10° in anteversion while the NSP had none (p = 0.004); the SSA had no outliers for anteversion while the NSA had one (p = 0.500). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted technology allowed a newly trained surgeon to produce similarly accurate results and outcomes as experienced surgeons in anterior and posterior hip arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):365–370

Aims

Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA.

Aims

Excellent outcomes have been reported following CT-based robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) compared with manual THA; however, its superiority over CT-based navigation THA (nTHA) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine whether a CT-based robotic arm-assisted system helps surgeons perform accurate cup placement, minimizes leg length, and offsets discrepancies more than a CT-based navigation system.

Aims

The primary objective of this study was to develop a validated classification system for assessing iatrogenic bone trauma and soft-tissue injury during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary objective was to compare macroscopic bone trauma and soft-tissues injury in conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA) using this classification system.

Aims

Hip arthroplasty aims to accurately recreate joint biomechanics. Considerable attention has been paid to vertical and horizontal offset, but femoral head centre in the anteroposterior (AP) plane has received little attention. This study investigates the accuracy of restoration of joint centre of rotation in the AP plane.

Aims

The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA.