Robotic‐Arm Assisted versus Manual Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Radiographic Accuracy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed K. Emara ◽  
Linsen T. Samuel ◽  
Alexander J. Acuña ◽  
Andy Kuo ◽  
Anton Khlopas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Total Hip

Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (6) ◽  
pp. 1009-1020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Ng ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Philip M. Simpson ◽  
Gavin J. Macpherson ◽  
James T. Patton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Total Hip

Aims The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020.

Efficacy of NSAIDs versus radiotherapy for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002199111
Author(s):  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Mitchell J Yelton ◽  
Jeffery W Chen ◽  
Philip J Rosinsky ◽  
David R Maldonado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: The aims of this systematic review were: (1) to investigate the prophylactic effect of radiotherapy (RT) and NSAIDs in high-risk patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA); and (2) to compare the efficacy of non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs in preventing post-THA HO, utilising a meta-analysis of randomised control studies. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles regarding HO following THA in March 2019. Studies were included if they contained data regarding HO incidence after THA or contained data regarding HO prophylaxis comparison of NSAIDs and/or RT in terms of dosage or duration. Results: 24 studies reported on populations that were not at high-risk for HO. These studies reported between 47.3% and 90.4% of their patient populations had no HO formation; between 2.8% and 52.7% had mild formation; and between 0.0% and 10.4% had severe formation. A total of 13 studies reported on populations at high-risk for HO. Studies analysing RT in high-risk patients reported between 28.6% and 97.4% of patients developed no HO formation; between 1.9% and 66.7% developed mild HO formation; and between 0.0% and 11.9% developed severe HO formation. Studies analysing NSAID treatment among high-risk populations reported between 76.6% and 88.9% had no HO formation; between 11.1% and 23.4% had mild HO formation, and between 0.0% and 1.8% had severe HO formation. 9 studies were identified as randomised control trials and subsequently used for meta-analysis. The relative risk for COX-II in developing any HO after THA was not significantly different compared to non-selective NSAIDs (RR 1.00; CI, 0.801–1.256; p = 0.489). Conclusions: NSAIDs prophylaxis for HO may have better efficacy than RT in high-risk patients following THA. Non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs have comparable efficacy in preventing HO. Factors such as medical comorbidities and side-effect profile should dictate the prophylaxis recommendation.

scholarly journals Total hip arthroplasty after a previous pelvic osteotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Shigemura ◽  
Y. Yamamoto ◽  
Y. Murata ◽  
T. Sato ◽  
R. Tsuchiya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pelvic Osteotomy ◽  
Total Hip

Does robotic-assisted surgery improve outcomes of total hip arthroplasty compared to manual technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2021-141135
Author(s):  
Vishal Kumar ◽  
Sandeep Patel ◽  
Vishnu Baburaj ◽  
Rajesh Kumar Rajnish ◽  
Sameer Aggarwal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Limb Length ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Total Hip

BackgroundRobot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an emerging technology that claims to position implants with very high accuracy. However, there is currently limited data in literature on whether this improved accuracy leads to better long-term clinical outcomes. This systematic review compares the outcomes of THA done with the help of robotic assistance (RA) to those done with conventional manual techniques (MTs).MethodsFour electronic databases were searched for eligible articles that directly compared robot-assisted THA to manual THA and had data on the radiological or clinical outcomes of both. Data on various outcome parameters were collected. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 17 articles were found eligible for inclusion, and 3600 cases were analysed. Mean operating time in the RA group was significantly longer than in the MT group. RA resulted in significantly more acetabular cups being placed inside Lewinnek’s and Callanan’s safe zones (p<0.001) and had significantly reduced limb length discrepancy compared with MT. There were no statistically significant differences in the two groups in terms of incidence of perioperative complications, need for revision surgery and long-term functional outcome.ConclusionRA leads to highly accurate implant placement and leads to significantly reduced limb length discrepancies. However, the authors do not recommend robot-assisted techniques for routine THAs due to lack of adequate long-term follow-up data, prolonged surgical times and no significant differences in the rate of complications and implant survivorship compared with conventional MTs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document