Validating a Modified Circle Theorem Method for the Measurement of Acetabular Cup Anteversion on Plain Radiography with Intra-Operative Data from Robotic Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Amirouche, Farid; Solitro, Giovanni F.; Chandrasekaran, Siva; Domb, Benjamin G.; Gonzalez, Mark H.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.07.042

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mako utilizes computed tomographic (CT)-guided navigation to assist in acetabular reaming and cup placement, femoral neck osteotomy, and reproduction of leg length and offset and has achieved more widespread market penetration and adoption by orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. Several studies have validated the accuracy and precision of acetabular component placement with the Mako system [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] , and few have shown outcomes 50,52 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:This systematic review aimed to present an updated analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (robotic THA) and conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (manual THA).Methods:A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic review was performed using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. Controlled studies comparing primary robotic THA and manual THA utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. We also compared radiographic outcomes, dislocation rates, and revision surgical procedures between groups. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools were used to assess study quality and risk of bias.Results:Of 765 studies identified, 7 articles comparing robotic THA with manual THA met inclusion criteria. A total of 658 patients were assessed, 335 of whom underwent robotic THA. The majority of studies found no significant differences (p > 0.05) in PROMs between the 2 techniques. Two low-quality studies (Level III) found significantly better postoperative PROMs favoring robotic THA at 2 years. When assessing radiographic outcomes, 6 studies showed that robotic THA resulted in more consistent and accurate component placement. No differences in postoperative dislocations, complications, or revision rates were found between groups except in 1 study, which found significantly more dislocations and revisions in the robotic THA cohort. Reported operative times were a mean of 12 to 25 minutes longer when using robotic THA.Conclusions:The existing literature comparing robotic THA and manual THA is scarce and low-quality, with findings limited by methodological flaws in study design. Although evidence exists to support increased accuracy and reproducibility of THA component placement with robotic THA, this has not been shown to reduce postoperative dislocation and revision rates. Based on the available evidence, functional outcomes are comparable between techniques, and robotic THA appears to be associated with longer operative times. To fully evaluate the utility of robotic THA, additional well-designed, prospective controlled studies with continuous long-term monitoring are required.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Armirouche et al. 18 performed a study on 103 cases of THA using the MAKO system, and the average anteversion angle of the acetabular cup prosthesis was (21.2 ± 2.0)° after surgery. Redmond et al.…”

Section: Robotic Arm-assisted Thamentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic arm-assisted arthroplasty: The latest developments

Chen

Deng

Sun

et al. 2022

Chinese Journal of Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional orientation and location-dependent varying rules of radiographic angles of the acetabular cup

Zhao

et al. 2018

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes an innovative model for accurately explaining how 2D RA/RI angles of cup are varying following different 3D RA/RI angles and location of cup. The analysis results provide clinicians an intuitive grasp of knowledge about 2D RA/RI angles greater or smaller than their 3D counterparts post-operatively. The established model may allow determining the effects of pelvic rotations on 2D radiographic angles of cup.

show abstract

Validating a Modified Circle Theorem Method for the Measurement of Acetabular Cup Anteversion on Plain Radiography with Intra-Operative Data from Robotic Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

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

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

Robotic arm-assisted arthroplasty: The latest developments

Three-dimensional orientation and location-dependent varying rules of radiographic angles of the acetabular cup

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About