To analyse the clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) with a mean follow-up of 2 years at Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid.
Materials and methods:
A prospective descriptive study was conducted including patients who underwent RA-THA using the Mako system (Stryker) between October 2021 and March 2024. All procedures were performed by 4 dedicated hip surgeons, excluding each surgeon’s learning curve. Demographic, clinical, functional, and radiological parameters were analysed. Mean follow-up exceeded 24 months.
Results:
A total of 226 patients were included (52% male, 48% female), with a mean age of 64.9 ± 12.9 years. Mean follow-up was 27.1 (range 12–36) months.
Preoperative diagnoses were primary hip osteoarthritis in 88.5%, developmental dysplasia in 5.8%, avascular necrosis in 3.1%, post-traumatic osteoarthritis in 1.8%, and subcapital fracture nonunion in 0.4%.
Mean operative time was 87.9 ± 23.4 minutes. Intraoperative complications included 11 technical events related to marker loss (4.86%), 6 greater trochanter fractures (2.6%), and 2 calcar fractures (0.8%).
Mean acetabular component positioning was 43.1 ± 3.4° of inclination and 14.2 ± 3.8° of anteversion. Native femoral offset was preserved, with a mean difference of 1.8 ± 4.5 mm. Planned limb-length discrepancy accuracy was 90% within ±5 mm. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from a preoperative mean of 51.7 to 87.9 at 1 year (p < 0.001).
During follow-up, 5 neurological complications were recorded, 5 postoperative greater trochanter fractures, and 5 infections (2.2%), all successfully treated. 1 traumatic dislocation (0.4%) occurred without revision surgery.
Conclusions:
Robotic-arm assisted THA achieves high accuracy and precision in implant positioning and limb-length restoration, with a low dislocation rate. Operative time, complication rates, and short- to mid-term functional outcomes fall within the ranges previously reported in the literature for conventional techniques. Long-term studies are required to determine the impact of robotic assistance on implant survivorship.
JonssonBLarssonSE. Functional improvement and costs of hip and knee arthroplasty in destructive rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol1991; 20: 351–357.
2.
RäsänenPPaavolainenPSintonenH, et al. Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs. Acta Orthop2007; 78: 108–115.
3.
BitarYFEStoneJCJacksonTJ, et al. Leg-length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of robot-assisted posterior, fluoroscopy-guided anterior, and conventional posterior approaches. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2015; 44: 265–269.
4.
RenkawitzTHaimerlMDohmenL, et al. The association between femoral tilt and impingement-free range-of-motion in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2012; 13: 65.
5.
BarrackRL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2003; 11: 89–99.
6.
KennedyJGRogersWBSoffeKE, et al. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplasty1998; 13: 530–534.
7.
Capón-GarcíaDLópez-PardoAAlves-PérezMT. Causes for revision surgery in total hip replacement. A retrospective epidemiological analysis. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol2016; 60: 160–166.
8.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrR, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
9.
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.
10.
EmaraAKSamuelLTAcuñaAJ, et al. Robotic-arm assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of radiographic accuracy. Int J Med Robot2021; 17: e2332.
11.
KayaniBKonanSAyuobA, et al. The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev2019; 4: 618–625.
12.
RivièreCLazicSDagneauxL, et al. Spine-hip relations in patients with hip osteoarthritis. EFORT Open Rev2018; 3: 39–44.
13.
NodzoSRChangCCCarrollKM, et al. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study. Bone Joint J2018; 100-B: 1303–1309.
14.
SiebelTKäferW. Clinical outcome following robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a controlled and prospective study of seventy-one patients. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb2005; 143: 391–398. In German.
15.
BusseJGasteigerWTönnisD. A new method for roentgenologic evaluation of the hip joint—the hip factor. Arch Orthop Unfallchir1972; 72: 1–9. In German.
16.
Rodríguez-GonzálezFABartrina-TarrioAGómez-MuñozE, et al. Resultados clínicos de artroplastia total de cadera asistida por brazo robótico en España: estudio preliminar. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol2024; 68: 108–120.
17.
Lara-TaranchenkoYSozaDPujolO, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation for the Spanish population of the modified Harris score for functional and symptomatic hip joint assessment. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol2022; 66: 128–134.
18.
LokeRWKLimYHChanYK, 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.
19.
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.
20.
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.
21.
LimPLGonzalezMRWangKY, et al. Does robotic assistance increase the likelihood of achieving the minimal clinically important improvement following total hip arthroplasty? Findings from a propensity-score matched analysis of 1,364 procedures. J Arthroplasty2025; 40: 2930–2937.
22.
KanawadeVDorrLDBanksSA, et al. Precision of robotic guided instrumentation for acetabular component positioning. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 392–397.
23.
DorrLDMalikADastaneM, et al. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 119–127.
24.
ZhangYLiSLiuX, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty versus conventional surgery in terms of surgical accuracy, function, trauma, and complications: a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty2026; 41: 841–848.e1.
25.
LiYWangXGDongZY, et al. Effect of the acetabular cup positioning and leg length restoration after total hip arthroplasty using robotic-assisted surgery system. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi2022; 102: 43–48. In Chinese.
26.
WyattMCKieserDCKempMA, et al. Does the femoral offset affect replacements? The results from a National Joint Registry. Hip Int2019; 29: 289–298.
27.
MeermansGDoornJVKatsJJ. Restoration of the centre of rotation in primary total hip arthroplasty: the influence of acetabular floor depth and reaming technique. Bone Joint J2016; 98-B: 1597–1603.
28.
FlecherXOllivierMArgensonJN. Lower limb length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2016; 102(Suppl.): S9–S20.
29.
MahmoodSSMukkaSSCrnalicS, et al. Association between changes in global femoral offset after total hip arthroplasty and function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength. A prospective cohort study of 222 patients. Acta Orthop2016; 87: 36–41.
30.
RöslerJPerkaC. The effect of anatomical positional relationships on kinetic parameters after total hip replacement. Int Orthop2000; 24: 23–27.
31.
PincusDJenkinsonRPatersonM, et al. Association between surgical approach and major surgical complications in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. JAMA2020; 323: 1070–1076.
32.
SuracePSultanAAGeorgeJ, et al. The association between operative time and short-term complications in total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 89,802 surgeries. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 426–432.
33.
MeermansGKonanSDasR, et al. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B: 732–740.
34.
MoerenhoutKDeromePLaflammeGY, et al. Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg2020; 63: E412–E417.
35.
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.
36.
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.
37.
SikovMSloanMShethNP. Effect of operative time on complications following primary total hip arthroplasty: analysis of the NSQIP database. Hip Int2021; 31: 231–236.
38.
PeretsIWalshJPCloseMR, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and complication rate. Int J Med Robot2018; 14: e1912.
39.
SchwartzJTJrMayerJGEnghCA. Femoral fracture during non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1989; 71: 1135–1142.
40.
KızkapanTBMısırAEkenG, et al. Correlation between Harris, modified Harris hip, and Oxford hip scores of patients who underwent hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty following hip fracture. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg2022; 28: 308–314.
41.
van der WeesPJWammesJJAkkermansRP, et al. Patient-reported health outcomes after total hip and knee surgery in a Dutch University Hospital Setting: results of twenty years clinical registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18: 97.
42.
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.
43.
MolkoSDasí-SolaMMarcoF, et al. Clinical practices for primary hip and knee arthroplasties in Spain: a national study. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol (Engl Ed)2019; 63: 408–415.
