Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-9
Fluoroscopy-based robotic assistance for total hip arthroplasty improves acetabular cup placement accuracy for obese patients compared to the manual,fluoroscopic- assisted technique
Patient obesity is a risk factor for poor acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA).
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the impact of using a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic THA system on acetabular cup placement in obese versus non-obese patients.
METHODS:
A review of 105 consecutive manual unassisted (mTHA) (47 Obese/58 Non-obese) and 102 robotic-assisted (RA-THA) (50 Obese/52 Non-obese) primary, direct anterior approach THA procedures was conducted. All cases were performed by a single surgeon, for a pre-operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. Obesity was defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) 30 kg/m2. Outcomes included acetabular cup inclination and anteversion, and the proportion of cups within the Lewinnek safe-zone.
RESULTS:
Obese patients in the mTHA cohort had larger cup inclination angles on average compared to non-obese patients (44.82∘ 6.51 vs. 41.39∘ 6.75; 0.009). Obese mTHA patients were less likely to have cup placement within the Lewinnek zone compared to non-obese mTHA patients (0.48 vs. 0.67; 0.027). Obesity had no effect on the accuracy of RA-THA.
CONCLUSION:
Obesity affects the placement of the acetabular component in manual THA. The novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic THA system in this study demonstrated accurate cup placement regardless of obesity status.
IllgenRLBukowskiBRAbiolaRAndersonPChughtaiMKhlopasA, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: Outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up. Surg Technol Int.2017 Jul 1; 30: 365-72.
2.
PatilSBergulaAChenPCColwellCWJD’LimaDD. Polyethylene wear and acetabular component orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2003 Nov; 85(suppl_4): 56. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200300004-00007.
3.
LittleNJBuschCAGallagherJARorabeckCHBourneRB. Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2009 Nov 1; 467(11): 2895-900. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0845-3.
4.
FontalisAKayaniBThompsonJWPlastowRHaddadFS. Robotic total hip arthroplasty: Past, present and future. J Orthop Trauma.2022 Feb 1; 36(1): 6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2021.11.002.
5.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrRCompereCLZimmermanJR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1978 Mar; 60(2): 217.
6.
PalazzoCJourdanCDescampsSNizardRHamadoucheMAnractP, et al. Determinants of satisfaction 1 year after total hip arthroplasty: The role of expectations fulfilment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2014 Feb 24; 15(1): 53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-53.
7.
AnakweREJenkinsPJMoranM. Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: A study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty.2011 Feb 1; 26(2): 209-13. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.03.013.
8.
HevesiMWylesCCYaoJJ, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of fracture: More expensive, more complications, same diagnosis-related groups: A local and national cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2019; 101(10): 912. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00523.
9.
SerinoJIBurnettRAIDella ValleCJCourtneyPM. National trends in post-acute care costs following total hip arthroplasty from 2010 through 2018. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2022; 104(3): 255. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00392.
10.
ElsonLCBarrCJChandranSEHansenVJMalchauHKwonYM. Are morbidly obese patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty at an increased risk for component malpositioning? J Arthroplasty.2013 Sep 1; 28(8, Supplement): 41-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.035.
11.
CallananMCJarrettBBragdonCRZurakowskiDRubashHEFreibergAA, 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 Feb 1; 469(2): 319-29. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1.
12.
McBrideAFlynnJMillerGBarnesMMackieS. Body mass index and acetabular component position in total hip arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg.2013; 83(3): 171-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06176.x.
13.
ZhangSLiuYYangMMaMCaoZKongX, et al. Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: A retrospective case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res.2022 Jul 30; 17(1): 368. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03263-6.
14.
GuptaARedmondJMHammarstedtJEPetrakosAEVemulaSPDombBG. Does robotic-assisted computer navigation affect acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty in the obese patient? A comparison study. J Arthroplasty.2015 Dec 1; 30(12): 2204-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.062.
15.
BarrackRLKrempecJAClohisyJCMcDonaldDJRicciWMRuhEL, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2013 Oct 2; 95(19): 1760. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01704.
16.
CarenderCNGlassNADeMikDEElkinsJMBrownTSBedardNA. Projected prevalence of obesity in primary total hip arthroplasty: How big will the problem get? J Arthroplasty.2022 May 1; 37(5): 874-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.087.
17.
Obesity [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity.
18.
BuchanGBJHechtCJLiuDMoketeLKendoffDKamathAF. Improved accuracy of a novel fluoroscopy-based robotically assisted THA system compared to manual THA. J Robotic Surg [Internet]. 2023 May 20 [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01623-w.
19.
KamathAFDurbhakulaSMPickeringTCafferkyNLMurrayTGWindMA, et al. Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA. J Robot Surg.2022 Aug; 16(4): 905-13. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01315-3.
20.
MukakaM. A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J.2012 Sep; 24(3): 69-71.
21.
Obesity and overweight [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight.
22.
LeslieIJWilliamsSIsaacGInghamEFisherJ. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2009 Sep 1; 467(9): 2259-65. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0830-x.
23.
WidmerKHZurfluhB. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res.2004; 22(4): 815-21. doi: 10.1016/j.orthres.2003.11.001.
24.
DorrLD. Acetabular cup position: The imperative of getting it right. Orthopedics (Online).2008 Sep; 31(9): 898-9. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20080901-10.
25.
AntoniadisADimitriouDFluryAWiedmerGHaslerJHelmyN. Is direct anterior approach a credible option for severely obese patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty? A matched-control, retrospective, clinical study. J Arthroplasty.2018 Aug 1; 33(8): 2535-40. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.071.
26.
WattsCDHoudekMTWagnerERSculcoPKChalmersBPTauntonMJ. High risk of wound complications following direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in obese patients. J Arthroplasty.2015 Dec 1; 30(12): 2296-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.016.
27.
WoolsonSTPouliotMAHuddlestonJI. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an anterior approach and a fracture table: Short-term results from a community hospital. J Arthroplasty.2009 Oct 1; 24(7): 999-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.001.
28.
FlevasDATsantesAGMavrogenisAF. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty revisited. JBJS Rev.2020 Apr; 8(4): e0144. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00144.
29.
NodzoSRChangCCCarrollKMBarlowBTBanksSAPadgettDE, 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 J.2018 Oct 1; 100-B(10): 1303-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10-BJJ-2018-0201.R1.
30.
BitarYFEJacksonTJLindnerDBotserIBStakeCEDombBG. Predictive value of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics.2015 Jan; 38(1): e31-7. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20150105-57.
