Prospective randomized controlled trial on the accuracy of prosthesis positioning in total hip arthroplasty assisted by a newly designed whole-process robotic arm

Wang, Wenzhe; Zhang, Zian; Wang, Guanrong; Rong, Chun; Xu, Hong; Lu, Xinzhe; Liu, Yikai; Li, Chenkai; Zhang, Haining

doi:10.1007/s00264-022-05501-2

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The AML or Osteoloc stem was utilized in two [ 9 , 23 ] and the S-ROM in one study [ 11 ], while two other studies did not specify the stem type used [ 24 , 28 ]. The posterolateral approach was the most common ( n = 5) [ 9 , 23 , 25 – 27 ], followed by the anterolateral approach ( n = 1) [ 11 ], and modified Hardinge approach ( n = 1) [ 28 ], with one study not detailing the approach employed [ 24 ]. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was the most common PROMs reported in six studies [ 9 , 11 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For LLD, the results from four studies [ 11 , 24 , 25 , 28 ] recruiting 346 hips were combined with considerable heterogeneity ( I 2 = 86%). LLD for RATHA was on average 4 mm less than that of the COTHA group (95%CI − 7.08 to − 1.0 mm, low certainty) (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We retrieved 254 citations from the four databases; of these, 199 remained after removal of duplicates. A total of 28 full texts were evaluated for eligibility, among which 8 RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis of this review [9,11,[23][24][25][26][27][28] (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Results Of the Search And Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ruangsomboon,

Osman

et al. 2024

J Robotic Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare important clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) and conventional total hip arthroplasty (COTHA) in patients with hip osteoarthritis. We identified published RCTs comparing RATHA with COTHA in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main outcomes were major complications, revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and radiological outcomes. We included 8 RCTs involving 1014 patients and 977 hips. There was no difference in major complication rate (Relative Risk (RR) 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.74), revision rate (RR 1.33; 95%CI 0.08 to 22.74), and PROMs (standardized mean difference 0.01; 95%CI − 0.27 to 0.30) between RATHA and COTHA. RATHA resulted in little to no effects on femoral stem alignment (mean difference (MD) − 0.57 degree; 95%CI − 1.16 to 0.03) but yielded overall lower leg length discrepancy (MD − 4.04 mm; 95%CI − 7.08 to − 1.0) compared to COTHA. Most combined estimates had low certainty of evidence mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Based on the current evidence, there is no important difference in clinical and functional outcomes between RATHA and COTHA. The trivial higher radiological accuracy was also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Regardless, more robust evidence is needed to improve the quality and strength of the current evidence.PROSPERO registration: the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023453294). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ruangsomboon,

Osman

et al. 2024

J Robotic Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern software allows precise component planning and enables the surgeon to place the component to a predetermined reaming depth. [12][13][14] This planning software can determine if lateral cup placement will cause the acetabular component to be uncovered and can help the surgeon determine final cup placement. The software also allows the surgeons to place the smallest cup that is likely to gain a good press fit with an ability to upsize if a larger component is needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downsizing and minimising medialisation of the acetabular component: Novel technique to preserve bone in THA

Raj

Thompson

Whitehouse

et al. 2023

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard practice for acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is to medialise the acetabular component. Bone preservation techniques during primary THA are beneficial for possible future revisions. The goal of this study is to examine the effect of downsizing and minimising medialisation of the acetabular component on bone resection volume. The volume of bone resected during acetabular preparation for different sizes of components was calculated and the volume of bone preserved by downsizing the cup was determined. Minimising medialisation of the acetabular component by 1–3 mm from the true floor was calculated. Absolute values and percentage of bone volume preserved when acetabular components are downsized or less medialised is presented. Downsizing the acetabular component by one size (2 mm) preserves between 2.6 cm3 (size 40 vs 42) and 8.4 cm3 (size 72 vs 74) of bone volume and consistently reduces resected bone volume by at least 35% (range 35.2%–37.5%). Similarly, reducing medialisation of a 56 mm acetabular cup (as an example of a commonly implanted component) by 3 mm reduces bone loss by 5.9 cm3– 44% less bone volume resection. Downsizing and minimising medialisation of the cup in THA substantially preserves bone which may benefit future revision surgeries. Surgeons could consider implanting the smallest acceptable acetabular shell to preserve bone without compromising on head size.

show abstract

“…This directly impacts prosthesis survival. The use of full-process robotics can enhance the precision of cup and stem placement [12] , potentially prolonging prosthesis longevity in DDH patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application and Exploration of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Assisted by Full-Process Robotics

Shi,

Rao,

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To explore the clinical efficacy of total hip arthroplasty (THA) assisted by full-process robotics in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods Sixty-four patients were divided into two groups: the robotic-assisted group (n = 32) and the conventional group (n = 32). A retrospective study was conducted to compare the therapeutic differences between the two groups. Results All 64 patients underwent THA successfully, with an average follow-up time of (12.27 ± 0.17) months, and no relevant complications occurred. In the robotic-assisted group, the anteversion angle and abduction angle of the acetabular cup placement were within the safe zone, while in the conventional group, there were 4 cases outside the safe zone. The postoperative Harris score and FJS score were higher, and the VAS score was lower in the robotic-assisted group compared to the conventional group. Conclusion Robotic-assisted THA demonstrates advantages in intraoperative precision and postoperative efficacy in treating patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip compared to the conventional manual approach.

show abstract

Prospective randomized controlled trial on the accuracy of prosthesis positioning in total hip arthroplasty assisted by a newly designed whole-process robotic arm

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Downsizing and minimising medialisation of the acetabular component: Novel technique to preserve bone in THA

Application and Exploration of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Assisted by Full-Process Robotics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About