Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty

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.