Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved short-term outcomes for a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system compared to manual technique with fluoroscopic assistance

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

While robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) has been associated with improved accuracy of component placement, the perioperative and early postoperative outcomes of fluoroscopy-based RA-THA systems have yet to be elucidated.

Methods

This retrospective cohort analysis included a consecutive series of patients who received manual, fluoroscopy-assisted THA (mTHA) and fluoroscopy-based RA-THA at a single institution. We compared rates of complications within 90 days of surgery, length of hospital stay (LOS), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

Results

No differences existed between groups with respect to demographic data or perioperative recovery protocols. The RA-THA cohort had a significantly greater proportion of outpatient surgeries compared to the mTHA cohort (37.4% vs. 3.8%; p < 0.001) and significantly lower LOS (26.0 vs. 39.5 h; p < 0.001). The RA-THA cohort had a smaller 90-day postoperative complication rate compared to the mTHA cohort (0.9% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.029). The RA-THA cohort had significantly lower patient-reported VAS pain scores at 2-week follow-up visits (2.5 vs. 3.3; p = 0.048), but no difference was seen after 6-week follow visits (2.5 vs. 2.8; p = 0.468).

Conclusion

Fluoroscopy-based RA-THA demonstrates low rates of postoperative complications, improved postoperative pain profiles, and shortened LOS when compared to manual, fluoroscopy-assisted THA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Emara AK, Samuel LT, Acuña AJ, Kuo A, Khlopas A, Kamath AF (2021) Robotic-arm assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of radiographic accuracy. Int J Med Robot. https://doi.org/10.1002/RCS.2332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Eibl G, Stöckl B (2005) Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87:762–769. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.14745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Danoff JR, Bobman JT, Cunn G, Murtaugh T, Gorroochurn P, Geller JA et al (2016) Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:506–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2015.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grammatopoulos G, Thomas GER, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS (2015) The effect of orientation of the acetabular component on outcome following total hip arthroplasty with small diameter hard-on-soft bearings. Bone Jt J 97-B:164–172. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sugano N (2013) Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 5:1. https://doi.org/10.4055/CIOS.2013.5.1.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Subramanian P, Wainwright TW, Bahadori S, Middleton RG (2019) A review of the evolution of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 29:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019828286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perets I, Walsh JP, Mu BH, Mansor Y, Rosinsky PJ, Maldonado DR et al (2021) Short-term clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty: a pair-matched controlled study. Orthopedics 44:E236–E242. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20201119-10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Remily EA, Nabet A, Sax OC, Douglas SJ, Pervaiz SS, Delanois RE (2021) Impact of robotic assisted surgery on outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 9:46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTD.2021.04.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Domb BG, Chen JW, Lall AC, Perets I, Maldonado DR (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-19-00328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sweet MC, Borrelli GJ, Manawar SS, Miladore N (2021) Comparison of outcomes after robotic-assisted or conventional total hip arthroplasty at a minimum 2-year follow-up: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bullock EKC, Brown MJ, Clark G, Plant JGA, Blakeney WG (2022) Robotics in total hip arthroplasty: current concepts. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM11226674

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cozzi Lepri A, Villano M, Innocenti M, Porciatti T, Matassi F, Civinini R (2020) Precision and accuracy of robot-assisted technology with simplified express femoral workflow in measuring leg length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot 16:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/RCS.2141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang J-D, Kim I-S, Bhardwaj AM, Badami RN (2017) The evolution of computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty and relevant applications. Hip Pelvis 29:1. https://doi.org/10.5371/HP.2017.29.1.1

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamath AF, Durbhakula SM, Pickering T, Cafferky NL, Murray TG, Wind MA et al (2022) Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA. J Robot Surg 16:905–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-021-01315-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Simcox T, Singh V, Oakley CT, Koenig JA, Schwarzkopf R, Rozell JC (2022) Comparison of utilization and short-term complications between technology-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:E673–E682. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nichols CI, Vose JG, Nunley RM (2017) Clinical outcomes and 90-day costs following hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture. J Arthroplasty 32:S128–S134. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2017.01.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellimoottil C, Ryan AM, Hou H, Dupree J, Hallstrom B, Miller DC (2017) Implications of the 90-day episode definition used for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model. JAMA Surg 152:49. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMASURG.2016.3098

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Murphy WS, Siddiqi A, Cheng T, Lin B, Terry D, Talmo CT et al (2019) 2018 John Charnley Award: analysis of US Hip Replacement Bundled Payments: Physician-initiated Episodes Outperform Hospital-initiated Episodes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477:271–280. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buchan GBJ, Hecht CJ, Liu D, Mokete L, Kendoff D, Kamath AF (2023) Improved accuracy of a novel fluoroscopy-based robotically assisted THA system compared to manual THA. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11701-023-01623-W

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo DH, Li XM, Ma SQ, Zhao YC, Qi C, Xue Y (2022) Total hip arthroplasty with robotic arm assistance for precise cup positioning: a case-control study. Orthop Surg 14:1498–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/OS.13334

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Abbruzzese K, Valentino AL, Scholl L, Hampp EL, Chen Z, Smith R et al (2022) Physical and mental demand during total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 53:413–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCL.2022.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heng YY, Gunaratne R, Ironside C, Taheri A (2018) Conventional vs robotic arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgical time, transfusion rates, length of stay, complications and learning curve. J Arthritis. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-7921.1000272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Caldora P, D’Urso A, Banchetti R, Arniani S, Colcelli D, Ciampalini L et al (2020) Blood transfusion, hospital stay and learning curve in robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Biol Regul Homeost AGENTS 34:37–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barsoum W, Gregory D, Needham K, Mont M, Sodhi N, Coppolecchia A et al (2023) Advantages of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a 90-day episode-of-care clinical utility and cost analysis. J Comp Eff Res. https://doi.org/10.57264/CER-2022-0208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pierce J, Needham K, Adams C, Coppolecchia A, Lavernia C (2021) Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: an economic analysis. J Comp Eff Res 10:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.2217/CER-2020-0255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Keswani A, Beck C, Meier KM, Fields A, Bronson MJ, Moucha CS (2016) Day of surgery and surgical start time affect hospital length of stay after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:2426–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2016.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dlott CC, Moore A, Nelson C, Stone D, Xu Y, Morris JC et al (2020) Preoperative risk factor optimization lowers hospital length of stay and postoperative emergency department visits in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 35:1508-1515.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ng N, Gaston P, Simpson PM, Macpherson GJ, Patton JT, Clement ND (2021) Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt J 103-B:1009–1020. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1856.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kong X, Yang M, Jerabek S, Zhang G, Chen J, Chai W (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.2020.03.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Ibrahim MS, Ayuob A, Haddad FS (2021) The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 31:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019889334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shibanuma N, Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Takayama K, Sanada Y, Kurosaka M et al (2021) Early postoperative clinical recovery of robotic arm-assisted vs. image-based navigated Total hip Arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12891-021-04162-3

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Paradis B, Bodine AM (2022) Short-term pain outcomes in robotic versus manual total hip arthoplasty. Adv Clin Med Res Healthc Deliv. https://doi.org/10.53785/2769-2779.1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH, Zhou YJ, Gu XM, Wang HH et al (2018) A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13018-018-0929-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhou Z, Li Y, Peng Y, Jiang J, Zuo J (2022) Clinical efficacy of direct anterior approach vs. other surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs. Front Surg. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSURG.2022.1022937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang XT, Liu DG, Jia B, Xu YX (2021) Comparisons between direct anterior approach and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty in postoperative orthopaedic complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Surg 13:1707–1720. https://doi.org/10.1111/OS.13101

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Graham B. J. Buchan, Christian J. Hecht II & Atul F. Kamath

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Peter K. Sculco

  3. Mission Orthopaedic Institute, Providence Mission Hospital, Mission Viejo, CA, 92691, USA

    James B. Chen

Authors
  1. Graham B. J. Buchan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian J. Hecht II
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter K. Sculco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James B. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Atul F. Kamath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Graham BJ Buchan and Christian J Hecht II. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Graham BJ Buchan, and all the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atul F. Kamath.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Graham BJ Buchan and Christian J Hecht II declare they have no competing interests. James B Chen and Peter K Sculco are paid consultants for Zimmer Biomet. Atul F Kamath serves on the speakers’ bureau, is a paid consultant, and owns stock or stock options in Zimmer Biomet.

Ethical approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation approved this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buchan, G.B.J., Hecht, C.J., Sculco, P.K. et al. Improved short-term outcomes for a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system compared to manual technique with fluoroscopic assistance. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 144, 501–508 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-05061-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-05061-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation