Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. The study analyzed a consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA between September 2018 and December 2019. Of these, 30 patients had DDH and were classified according to the Crowe type. Acetabular component alignment and 3D positions were measured using pre- and postoperative CT data. The absolute differences of cup alignment and 3D position were compared between DDH and non-DDH patients. Moreover, these differences were analyzed in relation to the severity of DDH. The discrepancy of leg length and combined offset compared with contralateral hip were measured. Results. The mean values of absolute differences (postoperative CT-preoperative plan) were 1.7° (standard deviation (SD) 2.0) (inclination) and 2.5° (SD 2.1°) (anteversion) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between non-DDH and DDH patients. The mean absolute differences for 3D cup position were 1.1 mm (SD 1.0) (coronal plane) and 1.2 mm (SD 2.1) (axial plane) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between two groups. No significant difference was found either in cup alignment between postoperative CT and navigation record after cup screws or in the severity of DDH. Excellent restoration of leg length and combined offset were achieved in both groups. Conclusion. We demonstrated that robotic-assisted THA may achieve precise cup positioning in DDH patients, and may be useful in those with severe DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(10):629–638

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement when using robotic assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Objectives. The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction. Materials and Methods. This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. Patients undergoing conventional manual THA and robotic-arm assisted THA were well matched for age (mean age, 69.4 years (. sd. 5.2) vs 67.5 years (. sd. 5.8) (p = 0.25); body mass index (27.4 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 2.1) vs 26.9 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 2.2); p = 0.39); and laterality of surgery (right = 28, left = 22 vs right = 12, left = 13; p = 0.78). All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recorded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. Results. The correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) for intraobserver agreement and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94) for interobserver 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 with conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular component 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 with conventional THA. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p = 0.10). Conclusion. 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 component positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared with conventional manual THA

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

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. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

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

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.

Aims

Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position.