Comparison of Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted or Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up: A Systematic Review

Adverse events associated with robotic-assistance in total hip arthroplasty: an analysis based on the FDA MAUDE database

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reporting adverse events associated with medical devices, including emerging technologies, such as robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA). Aim of this study was to evaluate the variation of adverse events associated with robotics in THA.

METHODS

Medical device reports (MDRs) within the MAUDE database were identified between 2017 and 2021. For MDR identification the product class "orthopaedic stereotaxic equipment" and terms associated with THA were used. Individual adverse events were identified and organised by type and consequences, such as patient injury, surgical delay, or conversion to the manual technique.

RESULTS

521 MDRs constituting 546 discrete events were found. The most common reported complication was intraoperative hardware failure (304/546, 55.7%), among which the most common failure was a broken impaction handle/platform (110, 20.1%). Inaccurate cup placement was the second most common reported complication (63, 11.5%). Abandoning the robot occurred in 13.0% (71/521) of reports. A surgical delay was noted in 28% (146/521) of reports, with an average delay of 17.9 (range 1-60) minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying complications that may occur with robotics in THA is an important first step in preventing adverse events and surgical delays. Database analysis provide an overview of the range of complications.

Robot-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty is Associated With an Increased Risk of Periprosthetic Fracture

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to restore joint function and relieve pain. New technology, such as robot assistance, offers the potential to reduce human error, improve precision, and improve postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between conventional and robot-assisted THA.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study utilizing a national database from 2016 to 2019. Patients undergoing THA, conventional or robot-assisted, were identified via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code. Multivariate regressions were performed to assess outcomes between groups. Negative binomial regressions were performed to assess discharge disposition, readmission, and reoperation. Gamma regressions with log-link were used to assess total charges and lengths of hospital stays. Patient demographics and comorbidities, measured via the Elixhauser comorbidity index, were controlled for in our analyses. A total of 1,216,395 patients undergoing THA, 18,417 (1.51%) with robotic assistance, were identified.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing robot-assisted procedures had increased surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.53]; P < .001), including periprosthetic fracture (OR 1.63 [95% CI 1.35 to 1.98]; P < .001). Notably, these patients also had significantly greater total charges (OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.11 to 1.30]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assistance in THA is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications, including periprosthetic fracture, while incurring greater charges.

STUDY DESIGN

Level III; Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lower Intraoperative and Immediate Postoperative Complications in Robotic Versus Conventional Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Over 360,000 Patients

PURPOSE

Although a trend of an improved alignment with robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA) over conventional methods has surfaced from recent series, it is unknown whether these results translate into meaningful enhancements in postoperative outcomes. To address this lack in the literature, we compared the perioperative morbidity and mortality with robotic and conventional THA in a large national cohort of 367,894 patients. We hypothesized that no significant differences would exist in the outcomes between the two groups.

METHODS

Records were extracted from 2016-2019 from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project which is the largest in-patient database in the United States. From 367,894 THAs, robotics were employed for 7,863 patients. The remaining 360,031 conventional THAs served as controls. The two groups were compared for demographics, admission, and hospital stay details including costs, and mortality and morbidity data including medical and surgical complications. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data while analytical statistics including t-tests, chi-squared tests, Fischer exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were used for perioperative outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p<0.005.

RESULTS

Demographic distributions between robotic and conventional THA groups displayed similar age and sex characteristics. Shorter mean lengths of stay (1.87 days) were seen in robotic THA versus conventional THA (2.33 days) while higher costs were noted for the former (mean $68,686.71 vs $66,840.39) (p<0.005). Low overall mortality (0.03% robotic, 0.09% conventional) was seen in both groups (p>0.005). Higher comparative incidences of anemia, acute renal failure, and pneumonia were seen in conventional THA (p<0.005) while no significant differences were noted for other complications including myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and cardiac arrest (p>0.005). Among others, lower dislocation rates, mechanical complications, periprosthetic joint infection, and periprosthetic fractures were seen with robotic THA (p<0.005). Wound complications and superficial infection rates did not differ between the two groups (p>0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has emerged from our results to support more routine adaptation of the robotic option of performing a THA. These can be based on lower local, systemic, and mechanical complications as demonstrated by the present study. Further evaluation of these results in follow-up would help establish the foothold of robotic surgery in total hip replacement in the modern context.

Patient Perception of Robotic-Assisted Total Joint Arthroplasty in a Hispanic Population

Background

Robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery has become popular and widely available, mainly for total joint arthroplasty. However, there has been a persistent concern regarding access to robotic-assisted surgery and the utilization rate of total joint arthroplasty among minority groups. As an imperative effort to close the gap regarding health inequalities, we assessed the knowledge and perspective of Hispanics regarding robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

A 28-item questionnaire was established to evaluate Hispanics' perceptions of robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Participants answered questions about demographic features, knowledge about robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery, and preferences regarding manual vs robotic-assisted procedures.

Results

A total of 580 questionnaires were analyzed in our study, with an average age of participants of 49.1 years. Only 44.2% of the participants were familiar with robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Fifty-three percent of the respondents preferred robotic-assisted surgery over conventional procedures, with many participants believing that robotic-assisted surgery leads to better outcomes (54.7%) and faster recovery (53.1%).

Conclusions

Knowledge about specific factors such as clinical outcomes and costs may influence the perception and preference of Hispanics toward robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, patient education may play a crucial role in the informed decision-making process in Hispanics when opting between robotic-assisted or traditional orthopaedic surgery.

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

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.

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty utilizing a fluoroscopy-guided system resulted in improved intra-operative efficiency relative to a computerized tomography-based platform

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a computerized-tomography (CT) based workflow increases surgical time relative to traditional manual technique. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the intra-operative efficiencies of two robotic THA systems: a fluoroscopy-based platform (FL-RTHA) and a contemporary, CT-based (CT-RTHA) platform. A review of 107 consecutive FL-RTHA and 159 CT-RTHA primary, direct anterior approach (DAA) THA procedures was conducted. All cases were performed by one of two surgeons operating at the same institution, for a pre-operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. Primary outcome variables included averages and consistencies (variances) for surgical times and operating room (OR) times. A secondary outcome was to quantify the duration of robot-active phases in the FL-RTHA workflow. The FL-RTHA cohort experienced shorter surgical times (38.71 min ± 7.00 vs. 75.33 min ± 11.38; p < 0.001) and OR times (101.35 min ± 12.22 vs. 156.74 min ± 17.79; p < 0.001) compared to the CT-RTHA cohort. Surgical times and OR times were both more consistent in the FL-RTHA cohort compared to the CT-RTHA cohort (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent DAA THA with the assistance of a fluoroscopy-based robotic system experienced shorter and more consistent surgical times and OR times compared to patients who underwent similar DAA THA procedures with a contemporary, CT-based robotic platform.

Improved accuracy of a novel fluoroscopy-based robotically assisted THA system compared to manual THA

Accurate acetabular cup position remains a persistent challenge in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Studies investigating the early outcomes of robotic-assisted THA (RA-THA) systems have shown improved cup placement compared to manual THA (mTHA) approaches, however, contemporary robotic platforms are reliant on pre-operative CT imaging. The goal of this study was to analyze the accuracy of a novel, fluoroscopy-based RA-THA system compared to an unassisted mTHA approach and determine the effect of the robotic system on operative time. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis on a consecutive series of 198 patients who received mTHA and RA-THA between March 2021 and July 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the accuracy of acetabular component placement, defined by average cup inclination and anteversion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of acetabular cups positioned within the Lewinnek safe zone, operative time, and overall room time. The RA-THA group demonstrated significantly higher accuracy of acetabular anteversion to target compared to the manual group (18.5 vs. 21.7˚; p < 0.001), and had a significantly greater proportion of acetabular cups placed within the Lewinnek safe zone (81.6 vs. 59.0%; p < 0.001). The RA-THA cohort had longer operative times compared to mTHA group (39.0 vs. 35.3 min; p = 0.003), but no difference was seen in total operating room time (101.2 vs. 101.2 min; p = 0.982). This study demonstrates that the use of a novel, fluoroscopy-based, pin-less THA robotic platform increased the accuracy of acetabular cup placement, including a 22.6% improvement in safe zone placement, compared to mTHA approach, with no increase in overall case time.

Perioperative safety and efficacy of robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty in ERAS-managed patients: a pilot study

AIMS

Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) boasts superior accuracy in implant placement, but there is a lack of effective assessment in perioperative management in the context of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of rTHA versus conventional total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) in ERAS-managed patients.

METHODS

In this prospective trial, a total of 60 eligible patients aged between 18 and 80 years were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either rTHA or cTHA. The primary outcomes included blood loss parameters. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the operation, surgical time, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, Harris score, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The study cohort analyzed 59 eligible participants, 30 of whom underwent rTHA and 29 of whom underwent cTHA. Analysis could not be conducted for one patient due to severe anemia. Notably, the cTHA group had a significantly shorter surgical time than the rTHA group (69.49 ± 18.97 vs. 104.20 ± 19.63 min, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the rTHA and cTHA groups for blood loss parameters, including total blood loss (1280.30 ± 404.01 vs. 1094.86 ± 494.39 ml, P = 0.137) and drainage volume (154.35 ± 121.50 vs. 159.13 ± 135.04 ml, P = 0.900), as well as intraoperative blood loss (126.67 ± 38.80 vs. 118.52 ± 60.68 ml, P = 0.544) and hidden blood loss (982.43 ± 438.83 vs. 784.00 ± 580.96 ml, P = 0.206). Only one patient in the cTHA group required allogeneic blood transfusion. At 3 months postoperatively, both groups showed improvements in WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, and Harris score, with no significant differences found between the two groups. Few complications were reported in both groups without significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the longer surgical time, rTHA did not negatively affect blood loss, pain, or functional recovery or lead to an increased risk of complications in ERAS-managed patients, suggesting that rTHA can be safely and effectively incorporated into an ERAS program for primary THA.

The learning curve for a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system

BACKGROUND

Adoption of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) systems can improve the accuracy of acetabular cup placement, but no group has reported the learning curve of novel, fluoroscopy-based RA-THA systems.

METHODS

A learning-curve cumulative summation (LC-CUSUM) analysis was performed on a consecutive series of the first 100 patients who received fluoroscopy-based RA-THA by the study surgeon. Operative times and specific robotic timepoints were compared between learning and proficiency phases.

RESULTS

Implementation of fluoroscopy-based RA-THA was associated with a learning curve of 12 cases. A 6-min increase in operative time was seen during the learning phase compared to the proficiency phase (44.3 ± 4.4 vs. 38.0 ± 7.1 min; p < 0.001), with a 3-min longer robotic cup impaction sequence during the learning phase (7.8 ± 1.9 vs. 4.8 ± 1.3 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adoption of fluoroscopy-based RA-THA is associated with a brief learning curve of 12 cases, with the most significant improvements in surgical efficiency realised during acetabular cup placement.

The Top Three Burning Questions in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for end-stage osteoarthritis is one of the most effective surgical treatments in medicine. Impressive outcomes have been well documented in the literature with patients gaining ambulation and recovery of hip joint function. Nevertheless, there are still debatable issues and controversies that the orthopedic community has not been able to provide a definitive answer for. This review is focused on the current three most debatable issues surrounding the THA procedure: (1) new cutting-edge technology, (2) spinopelvic mobility, and (3) fast-track protocols. The scope of the herein narrative review is to analyze the debatable issues surrounding the three aforementioned topics and conclude the best contemporary clinical approaches regarding each issue.

[Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis]

Robotic-assisted arthroplasty has been rapidly entering clinical routine in recent years. The leading endoprosthesis manufacturers have all meanwhile placed robotic systems on the market, which, however, differ significantly from one another technically. Current systems are currently classified according to the degree of autonomy (active vs. semi-active vs. passive) and the data/image source (image-based: CT vs. X‑ray, imageless). Some systems already offer the possibility of robotic-assisted or navigated implantation of hip endoprostheses. In the following review article, the currently leading robotic systems will be presented and compared with regard to their characteristics. Furthermore, the analysis of the learning curves for the different systems, currently available cost analysis models and an outlook on future developments and challenges will be given.

Comparison of Postoperative Instability and Acetabular Cup Positioning in Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) affords precision yet uncertain clinical benefits. This study compares dislocation rates and related revisions between R-THA and manual total hip arthroplasty (M-THA). Secondarily we evaluated cup position, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A three-surgeon cohort study was conducted on 2247 consecutive patients (1724 M-THA and 523 R-THA) who received a primary THA between January 2014 and June 2020 at a single hospital. Demographics, PROMs, emergency department visits, readmissions, and 90-day complications were collected via the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative. Chart review yielded instability occurrence with an average follow-up of 4 years. Multivariate regression analysis was performed, and a sample of 368 radiographs, including all dislocations, were assessed.

RESULTS

There were significantly lower rates of dislocation in R-THA (0.6%) vs M-THA (2.5%; Multivariate odds ratio 3.74, P < .046). All cases of unstable R-THA were successfully treated conservatively, whereas 46% of unstable M-THA were revised for recurrent instability. Cup anteversion (25.6° ± 5.4° R-THA vs 20.6° ± 7.6° M-THA) was greater, and cup inclination (42.5° ± 5.3° R-THA vs 47.0° ± 6.7° M-THA) was lower in the R-THA group (P < .05). No significant differences were noted for demographics, PROMs, or other complications (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

R-THA resulted in less than one-fourth the dislocation rate compared to M-THA and no revision for instability. It was associated with no difference in PROMs or other early complications. The influence of R-THA on stability goes beyond simply cup positioning and deserves further study.