A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing CT-based planning with conventional total hip arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty.

Aims: Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results: There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion: This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes.

Length of stay and discharge dispositions following robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus conventional technique and predictors of delayed discharge.

Aims: In-hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge dispositions following arthroplasty could act as surrogate measures for improvement in patient pathways, and have major cost saving implications for healthcare providers. With the ever-growing adoption of robotic technology in arthroplasty, it is imperative to evaluate its impact on LOS. The objectives of this study were to compare LOS and discharge dispositions following robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RO TKA) and unicompartmental arthroplasty (RO UKA) versus conventional technique (CO TKA and UKA). Methods: This large-scale, single-institution study included patients of any age undergoing primary TKA (n = 1,375) or UKA (n = 337) for any cause between May 2019 and January 2023. Data extracted included patient demographics, LOS, need for post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) admission, anaesthesia type, readmission within 30 days, and discharge dispositions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were also employed to identify factors and patient characteristics related to delayed discharge. Results: The median LOS in the RO TKA group was 76 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 54 to 104) versus 82.5 (IQR 58 to 127) in the CO TKA group (p < 0.001) and 54 hours (IQR 34 to 77) in the RO UKA versus 58 (IQR 35 to 81) in the CO UKA (p = 0.031). Discharge dispositions were comparable between the two groups. A higher percentage of patients undergoing CO TKA required PACU admission (8% vs 5.2%; p = 0.040). Conclusion: Our study showed that robotic arm assistance was associated with a shorter LOS in patients undergoing primary UKA and TKA, and no difference in the discharge destinations. Our results suggest that robotic arm assistance could be advantageous in partly addressing the upsurge of knee arthroplasty procedures and the concomitant healthcare burden; however, this needs to be corroborated by long-term cost-effectiveness analyses and data from randomized controlled studies.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Robotic-Arm Assisted Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Study With Minimum 3 Years' Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (RO THA) has been shown to improve the accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty (CO THA). This study reports Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of a previous trial that showed that RO THA was associated with improved accuracy and reduced outliers in acetabular component positioning compared with CO THA. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing CO THA versus 50 patients receiving RO THA. The Oxford hip score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), University of California at Los Angeles hip score were recorded at a minimum of 3 years following surgery. RESULTS: At minimum 3 years follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in CO THA versus RO THA with respect to the Oxford hip score [median 42(6.25) versus 41(5.5), P = .914]; FJS [89 (9.25) versus 86 (9), P = .065], and University of California at Los Angeles score [median 7.5 (3) versus 7 (2), P = .381]. None of the study patients had dislocations or underwent revision surgery within 3 years follow-up. CONCLUSION: The previously reported improvement in accuracy of acetabular component in this study population did not translate to statistically significant improvements in PROMs. Patients in both groups achieved excellent PROMs and there was a trend towards higher FJS scores postoperatively in the RO THA group that did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are needed to assess the significance of these findings on longer-term clinical outcomes and implant survivorships, and also to explore the impact of the enhanced RO THA workflow and functional implant positioning on these outcomes.

2-Year Radiostereometric Analysis Evaluation of a Short, Proximally Coated, Triple-Taper Blade Femoral Stem Versus a Quadrangular-Taper Stem With Reinforced Proximal Body: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cementless stem designs with proximal metaphyseal fixation aim to achieve better load distribution, reduce stress shielding, and improve primary stability. The purpose of this prospective, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the 2-year migration and clinical outcomes of two cementless femoral stems. METHODS: A total of 60 participants undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty for any cause were randomly allocated to receiving either a proximally coated, short blade stem or a quadrangular-taper stem with a reinforced proximal body. Radiostereometric analysis radiographs were performed postoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. The Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score and the EuroQol five-dimension were also collected. RESULTS: At two years, the median subsidence of the short-blade stem was 0.097 millimeters (mm) [Interquartile range (IQR) -0.67 to 0.08)] versus 0.086 mm(IQR, -0.29 to 0.005, P = .683); medial translation 0.023 mm (IQR 0.08 to 0.12) versus 0.029 mm(IQR -0.07 to 0.10, P = .907); anterior translation 0.035 mm (IQR -0.23 to 0.33) versus 0.07 mm (IQR -0.13 to 0.08, P = .268). At 24 months postoperatively, there were no stem revisions and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Both cementless stems exhibited a predictable migration pattern and achieved initial stability. There was no difference in migration across the three Cartesian axes at any time point. Clinical outcomes and PROMs were also comparable. Biological fixation of both implants evidenced by the radiostereometric analysis and excellent PROMs are likely to translate to longer-term stability, which would need to be corroborated by longer-term outcome studies.