Comparison of Precision for Manual versus Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed by Fellows

Abstract

Although various studies have shown that robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) is associated with improved component positioning to plan and reduced intraoperative complications, there is still a learning curve for implementation even for experienced surgeons. This study assessed this learning curve for fellows during their training year, by comparing the accuracy and precision of acetabular component positioning, leg length, component offset, and center of rotation between manual THA (MTHA) and RATHA. Six fresh-frozen lower extremity specimens were utilized for surgical procedures performed by two adult reconstruction fellows who were halfway through their training year. The specimens were randomized to undergo one side with manual instrumentation and the contralateral side with RATHA. The final intraoperative surgical plan for rotation, cup orientation, leg length, and offset values were recorded and compared with the actual values measured by computed tomography (CT) scan. Using pre- and postoperative CT scans, the RATHA group was then compared with the MTHA group for accuracy and precision to plan. To assess differences in standard deviations of each measurement, 2-variances testing was performed using α = 0.05. To assess differences in central tendencies of each measurement for each group, Mann–Whitney U tests were performed using α = 0.05. RATHA exhibited significantly (p < 0.05) greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with MTHA in shell version (2.3 ± 1.2° vs. 7.8 ± 4.6°), shell inclination (2.1 ± 1.2° vs. 7.2 ± 3.2), and leg length discrepancy (0.8 ± 0.8 mm vs. 6.4 ± 3.7 mm). Center of head rotation was reported for each anatomical plane. There was no statistical difference in distance from original center of head rotation when considering the superoinferior, mediolateral, and anteroposterior planes as well as when combined as a total deviation in all three planes. The use of CT-guided preoperative planning and intraoperative robotic technology can help surgeons achieve desired implant placement. Results from this study indicate that with limited RATHA experience, surgeons in fellowship training were able to place THA components more accurately and precisely to plan for several important parameters compared with MTHA, namely shell inclination, shell anteversion, and leg length discrepancy.

Keywords

robotic total hip arthroplasty - training - accuracy - precision

Publication History

Received: 24 March 2020

Accepted: 05 May 2020

Article published online:
22 September 2020

• References

• 1 Lawless BM, Greene M, Slover J, Kwon YM, Malchau H. Does age or bilateral disease influence the value of hip arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (04) 1073-1078
• 2 Sodhi N, Mont MA. Survival of total hip replacements. Lancet 2019; 393 (10172): 613
• 3 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
• 4 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 128-133
• 5 Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz P-F. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (03) 282-288
• 6 Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D. , et al. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?. Int Orthop 2008; 32 (05) 597-604
• 7 Mathew KK, Marchand KB, Tarazi JM. , et al. Computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 36
• 8 Schwab P-E, Fitz W, Meere P. , et al. Technology applications for arthroplasty: moving the field forward?. Instr Course Lect 2020; 69: 183-208
• 9 Tarwala R, Dorr LD. Robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty using the MAKO platform. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2011; 4 (03) 151-156
• 10 Hepinstall MS, Sodhi N, Ehiorobo JO, Hushmendy S, Mont MA. Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6 (22) 433
• 11 Sodhi N, Jacofsky DJ, Chee A, Mont MA. Benefits of CT scanning for the management of knee arthritis and arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2020; DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708041.
• 12 Salem HS, Marchand KB, Ehiorobo JO. , et al. Benefits of CT scanning for the management of hip arthritis and arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 36
• 13 Chen X, Xiong J, Wang P. , et al. Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J 2018; 94 (1112): 335-341
• 14 Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen II RL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2016; 29: 303-308
• 15 Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS. , et al. Erratum to: The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (04) 370
• 16 Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgen R. , et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2015; 25 (06) 531-536
• 17 Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS. , et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2208-2218
• 18 Redmond JM, Gupta A, Hammarstedt JE, Petrakos A, Stake CE, Domb BG. Accuracy of component placement in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (03) 193-199
• 19 Kanawade V, Dorr LD, Banks SA, Zhang Z, Wan Z. Precision of robotic guided instrumentation for acetabular component positioning. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (03) 392-397
• 20 Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 329-336
• 21 Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (02) 386-391