Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Jun;94(1112):335-341.
doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135352. Epub 2018 May 18.

Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis

Xi Chen #  1 , Jianping Xiong #  2 , Peipei Wang #  3 , Shibai Zhu  1 , Wenting Qi  4 , Huiming Peng  1 , Lingjia Yu  1 , Wenwei Qian  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis

Xi Chen et al. Postgrad Med J. 2018 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) allows for accurate preoperative planning and component positioning, potentially enhancing implant survival and long-term outcomes. The relative efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted and conventional THA, however, are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted and conventional THA.

Methods: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched in September 2017 to identify studies comparing the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted and conventional THA. Seven studies were included. Data of interest were extracted and analysed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results: The seven included studies involved 1516 patients, with 522 undergoing robotic-assisted and 994 undergoing conventional THA. Compared with conventional THA, robotic-assisted THA was associated with longer surgical time (not significant); lower intraoperative complication rates (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.34, p<0.0001 I2); better cup placement, stem placement and global offset and a higher rate of heterotopic ossifications. Functional scores, limb length discrepancy and rates of revision and stress shielding were similar in the two groups. The relative amount of blood loss was unclear.

Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that robotic-assisted THA has certain advantages over conventional THA, including the results of component positioning and rates of intraoperative complications. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the long-term clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted THA.

Keywords: robotic-assisted surgery; systematic review and meta-analysis; total hip arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Surgical time. CA, conventional arthroplasty; RA, robotic-assisted arthroplasty.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Intraoperative complications. CA, conventional arthroplasty; RA, robotic-assisted arthroplasty.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Heterotopic ossification. CA, conventional arthroplasty; RA, robotic-assisted arthroplasty.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Johnson VL, Hunter DJ. The epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:5–15. 10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:780–5. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;463:31–6. - PubMed
    1. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978;60:217–20. 10.2106/00004623-197860020-00014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:319–29. 10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms