Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a standard treatment for advanced hip disorders; however, conventional manual THA (M-THA) is potentially limited by suboptimal prosthesis positioning, a prolonged learning curve, and an elevated risk of complications. Robot-assisted THA (R-THA), with its enhanced accuracy in prosthesis alignment and intraoperative feedback capabilities, has been proposed to address these shortcomings. Nevertheless, the current literature on the differences in clinical outcomes between R-THA and M-THA remains inconsistent and fragmented, warranting a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of R-THA versus M-THA regarding surgical accuracy, perioperative outcomes, and complications.
Methods:
A comprehensive search was performed by 7 general databases prior to November 2024, and studies were collected if they were involved in the comparison between robot-assisted THA and manual THA in the surgical outcomes, including learning curve, operation time, prosthesis placement accuracy (cup anteversion and inclination), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and complications. The R 4.5.1 software was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals with standardised mean differences and Cohen's d values for continuous variables, as well as odds ratios for binary variables. The methodological bias and potential heterogeneity sources of included studies were evaluated.
Results:
A total of 37 studies were analysed in this study. Compared with M-THA, R-THA showed the better accuracy in prosthesis anteversion (OR 2.67; 95% CI, 1.15–6.19) and inclination angles (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.47–4.98), a shorter learning curve inflection point (18.48 vs. 63.53), a lower periprosthetic fracture rate (OR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38–0.77) and a lower incidence of leg length-discrepancy (LLD) (MD -1.42; 95% CI, -2.19–-0.66), but at the cost of a longer operation time (MD 18.16; 95% CI, 8.81–27.51). Moreover, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the other complications and HHS (MD -2.04; 95% CI, -6.84–2.76).
Conclusions:
R-THA shortens the learning curve, improves implant positioning accuracy, and reduces LLD, although it is associated with longer operative time, while functional outcomes and complication rates remain largely comparable to M-THA.
WuZZhengYZhangX.Safety and efficacy of orthopedic robots in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res2024; 19: 846.
2.
KimKKwonSKwonJ, et al. A review of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Biomed Eng Letters2023; 13: 523–535.
3.
BensaAPagliazziGMieleA, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty provides greater implant placement accuracy and lower complication rates, but not superior clinical results compared to the conventional manual approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2025; 40: 1921–1931.
4.
ZhuJZhengSSunJ, et al. Efficacy of an artificial intelligence preoperative planning system for assisting in revision surgery after artificial total hip arthroplasty. BMC Surg2025; 25: 58.
5.
TianRGaoXKongN, et al. A new seven-axis robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system improves component positioning: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Sci Rep2024; 14: 12643.
6.
AklEAKhabsaJIannizziC, et al. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ2024; 387: e079183.
7.
StangA.Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol2010; 25: 603–605.
8.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928.
9.
ImpellizzeriFMBizziniM.Systematic review and meta-analysis: a primer. Int J Sports Phys Ther2012; 7: 493–503.
10.
RosenkranzGK.A note on the Hodges-Lehmann estimator. Pharm Stat2009; 9: 162–167.
11.
McGrathSSohnHSteeleR, et al. Two-sample aggregate data meta-analysis of medians. Biom J2018; 62: 69–98.
12.
CallananMCJarrettBBragdonCR, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 319–329.
13.
LeslieIJWilliamsSIsaacG, et al. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 2259–2265.
14.
RamadanovNVossMDialloRM, et al. Do meta-analyses of total hip arthroplasty produce reliable results? A systematic review and meta-epidemiological study of statistical methods. Orthop Surg2025; 17: 1936–1955.
15.
BuchanGBJHechtCJ2ndLawrieCM, et al. The learning curve for a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system. Int J Med Robot2023; 19: e2518.
16.
DaiHYZhuKCWangQJ, et al. [Learning curve and short-term clinical outcomes of Mako robotic-assisted direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi2022; 102: 49–55.
17.
de SteigerRNLorimerMSolomonM.What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 3860–3866.
18.
FoisseyCFauvernierMFaryC, et al. Total hip arthroplasty performed by direct anterior approach – Does experience influence the learning curve?SICOT J2020; 6: 15.
19.
GuoDHLiXMMaSQ, et al. Total hip arthroplasty with robotic arm assistance for precise cup positioning: a case-control study. Orthop Surg2022; 14: 1498–1505.
20.
KayaniBKonanSHuqSS, et al. The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2019; 31: 311–319.
21.
KolodychukNSuEAlexiadesMM, et al. Can robotic technology mitigate the learning curve of total hip arthroplasty?Bone Jt Open2021; 2: 365–370.
22.
KongXYangMJerabekS, et al. A retrospective study comparing a single surgeon's experience on manual versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty after the learning curve of the latter procedure – A cohort study. Int J Surg2020; 77: 174–180.
23.
LeeYKBiauDJYoonBH, et al. Learning curve of acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty using a cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 586–589.
24.
LeiPLiaoZPengJ, et al. Assessment of the learning curve of supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip arthroplasty in an Asian population. BioMed Res Int2020; 2020: 5180458.
25.
LiYWYuSWYehJH, et al. First 100 total hip arthroplasties performed by a young surgeon using the direct anterior approach: learning curve and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2024; 144: 927–935.
26.
PetersRMTen HaveBLEFRykovK, et al. The learning curve of the direct anterior approach is 100 cases: an analysis based on 15,875 total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop2022; 93: 775–782.
27.
RasuliKJGoftonW.Percutaneously assisted total hip (PATH) and Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) arthroplasty: learning curves and early outcomes. Ann Transl Med2015; 3: 179.
28.
RedmondJMGuptaAHammarstedtJE, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 50–54.
29.
SchwartzJMGrantARBhadraAK.The learning curve for robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in low, medium, and high-volume surgeons. J Orthop2024; 55: 163–168.
30.
ShenKFengELinF, et al. Learning curve of total hip arthroplasty in direct anterior approach without requiring corrective osteotomy for hip dysplasia. Orthop Surg2022; 14: 840–850.
31.
StadlerCBolmJSSchopperC, et al. Learning curve comparison between switching approach and switching implant in cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2024; 144: 4259–4265.
32.
SunHLuHXiaoQ, et al. The learning curve of a novel seven-axis robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty system: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2024; 25: 342.
33.
TianRDuanXKongN, et al. Precise acetabular positioning, discrepancy in leg length, and hip offset using a new seven-axis robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty system requires no learning curve: a retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res2023; 18: 236.
34.
WangGXuYYuG, et al. Learning curve and initial outcomes of a novel percutaneously endoscopic-assisted total hip arthroplasty through mini bikini direct anterior approach: an observational cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res2024; 19: 420.
35.
DombBGEl BitarYFSadikAY, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 329–336.
36.
FontalisAKayaniBPlastowR, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing CT-based planning with conventional total hip arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2024; 106-B: 324–335.
37.
GengXDongZLiY, et al. Precise acetabular prosthesis positioning using a novel robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty system: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Orthop Surg2025; 17: 141–150.
38.
HengYYGunaratneRIronsideC, et al. Conventional vs robotic arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgical time, transfusion rates, length of stay, complications and learning curve. J Arthritis2018; 7: 1000272.
39.
LuXZhangZXuH, et al. A new designed full process coverage robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Int J Surg2024; 110: 2141–2150.
40.
WangWZhangZWangG, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial on the accuracy of prosthesis positioning in total hip arthroplasty assisted by a newly designed whole-process robotic arm. Int Orthop2023; 47: 413–419.
41.
ZepedaKEBurgiCKarasavvidisT, et al. Impact of robotic assistance on total hip arthroplasty: granular insights into surgical time. J Arthroplasty2025; 40: S172–S178.
42.
AvramGMPrillRGurauCD, et al. Acetabular cup placement and offset control in robotic total hip arthroplasty performed through the modified anterolateral approach. Int Orthop2023; 47: 2265–2273.
43.
DombBGChenJWLallAC, et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score–matched study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2020; 28: 847–856.
44.
DombBGRedmondJMLouisSS, et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 2208–2218.
45.
KamaraERobinsonJBasMA, et al. Adoption of robotic vs fluoroscopic guidance in total hip arthroplasty: is acetabular positioning improved in the learning curve?J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 125–130.
46.
TsaiTYDimitriouDLiJS, et al. Does haptic robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty better restore native acetabular and femoral anatomy?Int J Med Robot2016; 12: 288–295.
47.
ZhangXShenXZhangR, et al. Radiographic evaluation of robot-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Traumatol2024; 25: 33.
48.
CaldoraPD'UrsoABanchettiR, et al. Blood transfusion, hospital stay and learning curve in robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents2020; 34: 37–49.
49.
ShahAKLavuMSBurkhartRJ, et al. Robotic-assistance is associated with better joint outcomes compared to conventional techniques in surgically routine total hip arthroplasty: a propensity-matched large database study of 3948 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2025; 145: 114.
50.
HanPFChenClZhangZl, et al. Robotics-assisted versus conventional manual approaches for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Med Robot2019; 15: e1990.
51.
NgNGastonPSimpsonPM, et al. Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 1009–1020.
52.
MurphyPHindeSFulbrightH, et al. Methods of assessing value for money of UK-based early childhood public health interventions: a systematic literature review. Br Med Bull2023; 145: 88–109.
53.
BarrackRLKrempecJAClohisyJC, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 1760–1768.
54.
DombBGChenJWLallAC, et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2020; 28: 847–856
55.
BiedermannRToninAKrismerM, et al. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87: 762–769.
56.
SharmaAKCizmicZCarrollKM, et al. Computer navigation for revision total hip arthroplasty reduces dislocation rates. Indian J Orthop2022; 56: 1061–1065.
57.
BorsingerTMChandiSKPuriS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: an update on navigation, robotics, and contemporary advancements. HSS J2023; 19: 478–485.
58.
SchwabeMTGibianJTBartosiakKA, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty through the posterior approach. JBJS Essent Surg Tech2025; 15: e24.00010.
59.
McWilliamsABLampropoulosAStoneMH.Revision surgery for leg length inequality after primary hip replacement. Hip Int2018; 28: 554–558.
60.
MacionisV.Flexor Tendon Repair with Fast-Absorbable Sutures: A Rupture Incidence-Focused Analysis. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J2024; 14: 219–227.
61.
MiglioriniFVecchioGWeberCD, et al. Management of transient bone osteoporosis: a systematic review. Br Med Bull2023; 147: 79–89.
62.
KimHSLeeHJYooJJ.Minimal pre-operative leg length discrepancy as a risk factor of post-operative leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study of patients with non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2023; 24: 954.
63.
MassoeursSJLeaheyJLElnagarI, et al. Dynamic leg length discrepancy in hip arthroplasty patients: what is the amount a patient can accept without a limp? How to avoid medical-legal issues. Med Res Arch2024; 12: 10.
64.
IllgenRL NdBukowskiBRAbiolaR, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up. Surg Technol Int2017; 30: 365–372.
65.
BukowskiBRAndersonPKhlopasA, et al. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int2016; 29: 303–308.
66.
BargarWLPariseCAHankinsA, et al. Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 810–814.
67.
LokeR, WKLimYH, et al. MAKO robotic-assisted compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res2025; 20: 466.
68.
Llombart-BlancoRMariscalGBarriosC, et al. MAKO robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res2024; 19: 698.
69.
ChenXXiongJWangP, et al. Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J2018; 94: 335–341.
70.
WangYWangRGongS, et al. A comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot2023; 19: e2463.
71.
RuangsomboonPRuangsomboonOOsmanK, et al. Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Robot Surg2024; 18: 255.
72.
LuHXiaoQ.XuH., et al. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty for preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making. J Orthop Surg Res2023; 18, 608.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
