nach oben

Journal of Robotic Surgery

Erschienen in:

30.08.2021 | Review Article

Comparing early and mid-term outcomes between robotic-arm assisted and manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

verfasst von: Linsen T. Samuel, Alexander J. Acuña, Bilal Mahmood, Ahmed K. Emara, Atul F. Kamath

Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The projected increase in utilization rates of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has created an emphasis on novel technologies that can aid providers in maintaining historically positive outcomes. Widespread utilization of robotic assisted THA (RA-THA) is contingent upon achieving favorable outcomes compared to its traditional manual counterpart (mTHA). Therefore, the purpose of our systematic review was to compare RA-THA and mTHA in terms of the following: (1) functional outcomes and (2) complication rates. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for articles published October 1994 and May 2021 comparing functional outcomes and complication rates between RA-THA and mTHA cohorts. When three or more studies evaluated certain PROMs and complications, a pooled analysis utilizing Mantel–Haenszel (M–H) models was conducted utilizing data from final follow-up. Our final analysis included 18 studies which reported on a total of 2811 patients [RA-THA: n = 1194 (42.48%); mTHA: n = 1617 (57.52%)]. No significant differences were demonstrated for a majority of pooled analyses and when segregating by robotic system. Only WOMAC scores were significantly lower among RA-THA patients (p = 0.0006). For outcomes without sufficient data for a pooled analysis, there were no significant differences reported among included studies. The growing utilization of RA-THA motivates comparisons to its manual counterpart. Collectively, we found comparable functional outcomes and complication profiles between RA-THA and mTHA cohorts. More randomized controlled trials of higher quality and larger sample sizes are necessary to further strengthen these findings.

Jonsson B, Larsson SE (1991) Functional improvement and costs of hip and knee arthroplasty in destructive rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 20:351–357. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009749109096811CrossRefPubMed

Liang MH, Cullen KE, Larson MG et al (1986) Cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 29:937–943. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780290801CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg 89:780. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222CrossRef

Singh JA (2011) Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J 5:80–85. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001105010080CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS et al (2015) Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:1386–1397. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01141CrossRef

Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP (2018) Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg 100:1455–1460. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01617CrossRef

Krushell R, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Kison C et al (2016) Characterization of patient expectations and satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 26:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2016012621CrossRefPubMed

Mancuso CA, Salvati EA, Johanson NA et al (1997) Patients’ expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 12:387CrossRef

Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN et al (2003) Rates and outcomers of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85:27–32. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200301000-00005CrossRef

10.

Abbas K, Murtaza G, Umer M et al (2012) Complications of total hip replacement. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 22:575–578PubMed

11.

Zhan C, Miller MR (2003) Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization. JAMA 290:1868. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.14.1868CrossRefPubMed

12.

Waters TM, Daniels MJ, Bazzoli GJ et al (2015) Effect of medicare’s nonpayment for hospital-acquired conditions. JAMA Intern Med 175:347. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5486CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Duchman KR, Pugely AJ, Martin CT et al (2017) Operative time affects short-term complications in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1285–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.003CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bargar WL, Bauer A, Börner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the ROBODOC® system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199809000-00011CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bargar WL (2007) Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:31–36CrossRef

16.

Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R et al (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60:217–220CrossRef

17.

Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR et al (2011) The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:319–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bargar WL, Bauer A, Borner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199809000-00011CrossRefPubMed

19.

Subramanian P, Wainwright TW, Bahadori S, Middleton RG (2019) A review of the evolution of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. HIP Int 29:232CrossRef

20.

Bargar WL, Parise CA, Hankins A et al (2018) Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:810–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.066CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A et al (2016) Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 29:303–308PubMed

22.

Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS et al (2015) Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplasty 30:2208–2218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059CrossRefPubMed

23.

Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY et al (2014) Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:329–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7CrossRefPubMed

24.

El Bitar YF, Stone JC, Jackson TJ et al (2015) Leg-length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of robot-assisted posterior, fluoroscopy-guided anterior, and conventional posterior approaches. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 44:265–269

25.

Haddad FS, Kayani B, Huq SS et al (2019) Assuring the long-term total joint arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 101-B:11–18. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.101b1.bjj-2018-0377.r1CrossRef

26.

Lim SJ, Ko KR, Park CW et al (2015) Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with a short femoral stem: a prospective randomized short-Term outcome study. Comput Aided Surg 20:41–46. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2015.1076044CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kwon Y-M, Tsai T-Y, Dimitriou D, Li J-S (2016) Does haptic robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty better restore native acetabular and femoral anatomy? Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 12:288–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcsCrossRef

29.

Peng Y, Arauz P, Desai P et al (2019) In vivo kinematic analysis of patients with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty during gait at 1-year follow-up. Int J Med Robot 15:e2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2021CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kamara E, Robinson J, Bas MA et al (2017) Adoption of robotic vs fluoroscopic guidance in total hip arthroplasty: Is acetabular positioning improved in the learning curve? J Arthroplast 32:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.039CrossRef

31.

Cochrane Training Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. https://training.cochrane.org/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviews-interventions. Accessed 23 Feb 2021

32.

Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C et al (2003) Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement: a prospective study. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 85:1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007CrossRef

33.

Kong X, Yang M, Jerabek S et al (2020) A retrospective study comparing a single surgeon’s experience on manual versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty after the learning curve of the latter procedure: a cohort study. Int J Surg 77:174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.067CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kong X, Yang M, Li X et al (2020) Impact of surgeon handedness in manual and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 15:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01671-0CrossRef

35.

Domb BG, Chen JW, Lall AC et al (2020) Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 28:847–856. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00328CrossRefPubMed

36.

Hadley C, Grossman E, Mont M et al (2020) Robotic-assisted versus manually implanted total hip arthroplasty: a clinical and radiographic comparison - Pubmed. Surg Technol Int 28:371–376

37.

Perets I, Walsh JP, Mu BH et al (2020) Short-term clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty: a pair-matched controlled study. Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20201119-10CrossRefPubMed

38.

Clement ND, Gaston P, Bell A et al (2020) Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty a propensity score matched cohort study. Bone Jt Res 10:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.101.BJR-2020-0161.R1CrossRef

39.

Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Simcox T et al (2021) Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes? J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.074CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2006) Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:957–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.001CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hananouchi T, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2007) Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. J Orthop Res 25:1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20376CrossRefPubMed

42.

Colgan G, Walsh M, Bennett D et al (2016) Gait analysis and hip extensor function early post total hip replacement. J Orthop 13:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.03.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M (2015) Walking speed: the functional vital sign. J Aging Phys Act 23:314–322. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2013-0236CrossRefPubMed

44.

Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LHJ (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Jt Surg Am 55:1629–1632CrossRef

45.

Nakamura N, Sugano N, Sakai T, Nakahara I (2018) Does robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless THA result in improved outcomes scores or survivorship compared with hand rasping? results of a randomized trial at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:2169–2173. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000467CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:128–133. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00155CrossRef

47.

Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D et al (2008) Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop 32:597–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3CrossRefPubMed

48.

Kessler S, Kinkel S, Käfer W et al (2003) Influence of operation duration on perioperative morbidity in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 69:328–333PubMed

49.

Namba RS, Inacio MCS, Paxton EW (2013) Risk factors associated with deep surgical site infections after primary total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 56,216 knees. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:775–782. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00211CrossRef

50.

Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J et al (2006) Prolonged operative time correlates with increased infection rate after total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 2:70–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-005-0130-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Horlocker TT, Hebl JR, Gali B et al (2006) Anesthetic, patient, and surgical risk factors for neurologic complications after prolonged total tourniquet time during total knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg 102:950–955. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000194875.05587.7eCrossRefPubMed

52.

Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E et al (2010) Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:52–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1013-5CrossRefPubMed

53.

Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A et al (2008) Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1710–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

O’Malley NT, Fleming FJ, Gunzler DD et al (2012) Factors independently associated with complications and length of stay after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1832–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.025CrossRefPubMed

55.

Russo MW, Macdonell JR, Paulus MC et al (2015) Increased complications in obese patients undergoing direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30:1384–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.002CrossRefPubMed

56.

DeFrance M, Yayac M, Courtney PM, Squire M (2020) The impact of author financial conflicts on robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty research. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.033CrossRefPubMed

57.

Lan RH, Bell JW, Samuel LT, Kamath AF (2021) Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00402-021-03809-ZCrossRef

Titel: Comparing early and mid-term outcomes between robotic-arm assisted and manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review
verfasst von: Linsen T. Samuel
Alexander J. Acuña
Bilal Mahmood
Ahmed K. Emara
Atul F. Kamath
Publikationsdatum: 30.08.2021
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01299-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Comparing early and mid-term outcomes between robotic-arm assisted and manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

A review of simulation training and new 3D computer-generated synthetic organs for robotic surgery education

Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy

Cirq robotic arm-assisted transpedicular instrumentation with intraoperative navigation: technical note and case series with 714 thoracolumbar screws

Bupivacaine liposome use reduces length of post-anesthesia care unit stay and postoperative narcotic use following robotic inguinal herniorrhaphy

Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA

Minimally invasive right versus left colectomy for cancer: does robotic surgery mitigate differences in short-term outcomes?

Update Chirurgie