Lower 90-day inpatient readmission and 1-year reoperation in patients undergoing robotic versus manual total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2024
Lower 90-day inpatient readmission and 1-year reoperation in patients undergoing robotic versus manual total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach
The value of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has yet to be determined compared to conventional manual THA (mTHA).
OBJECTIVE:
Evaluate 90-day inpatient readmission rates, rates of reoperation, and clinically significant improvement of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1-year in a cohort of patients who underwent mTHA or rTHA through a direct anterior (DA) approach.
METHODS:
A single-surgeon, prospective institutional cohort of 362 patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis via the DA approach between February 2019 and November 2020 were included. Patient demographics, surgical time, discharge disposition, length of stay, acetabular cup size, 90-day inpatient readmission, 1-year reoperation, and 1-year PROMs were collected for 148 manual and 214 robotic THAs, respectively.
RESULTS:
Patients undergoing rTHA had lower 90-day readmission (3.74% vs 9.46%, 0.04) and lower 1-year reoperation (0.93% vs 4.73% mTHA, 0.04). rTHA acetabular cup sizes were smaller (rTHA median 52, interquartile range [IQR] 50; 54, mTHA median 54, IQR 52; 58, 0.001). Surgical time was longer for rTHA (114 minutes vs 101 minutes, 0.001). At 1-year post-operatively, there was no difference in any of the PROMs evaluated.
CONCLUSION:
Robotic THA demonstrated lower 90-day readmissions and 1-year reoperation rates than manual THA via the DA approach. PROMs were not significantly different between the two groups at one year.
EmaraAKZhouGKlikaAKKoroukianSMSchiltzNKHiguera-RuedaCA, et al. Is there increased value in robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty? Bone Joint J.2021; 103-B: 1488-96. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B9.BJJ-2020-2411.R1.
2.
SuganoN. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg.2013; 5: 1. doi: 10.4055/cios.2013.5.1.1.
3.
ParsleyBS. Robotics in orthopedics: A brave new world. J Arthroplasty.2018; 33: 2355-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.032.
4.
SinghVRealyvasquezJSimcoxTRozellJCSchwarzkopfRDavidovitchRI. Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: Does the use of technology yield superior outcomes? J Arthroplasty.2021; 36: 2801-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.074.
5.
KanawadeVDorrLDBanksSAZhangZWanZ. Precision of robotic guided instrumentation for acetabular component positioning. J Arthroplasty.2015; 30: 392-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.021.
6.
DanoffJRBobmanJTCunnGMurtaughTGorroochurnPGellerJA, et al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2016; 31: 506-11. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.010.
7.
KamaraERobinsonJBasMARodriguezJAHepinstallMS. Adoption of robotic vs fluoroscopic guidance in total hip arthroplasty: Is acetabular positioning improved in the learning curve? J Arthroplasty.2017; 32: 125-30. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.039.
8.
DombBGEl BitarYFSadikAYStakeCEBotserIB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: A matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2014; 472: 329-36. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7.
9.
KayaniBKonanSThakrarRRHuqSSHaddadFS. Assuring the long-term total joint arthroplasty. Bone Joint J.2019; 101-B: 11-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0377.R1.
10.
OngCBBuchanGBJHechtIICJHommaYHarmonDJKendoffDO, et al. Fluoroscopy-based robotics in total hip arthroplasty mitigates laterality-based differences in acetabular cup placement when compared to the manual, fluoroscopic-assisted technique. Technology and Health Care. 2023; 1-9. doi: 10.3233/THC-231126.
11.
DombBGRedmondJMLouisSSAldenKJDaleyRJLaReauJM, 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: 2208-18. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059.
12.
MeftahMYadavAWongACRanawatASRanawatCS. A novel method for accurate and reproducible functional cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2013; 28: 1200-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.018.
13.
MiloneMTSchwarzkopfRMeerePACarrollKMJerabekSAVigdorchikJ. Rigid patient positioning is unreliable in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2017; 32: 1890-3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.038.
14.
ShermanWFWuVJ. Robotic surgery in total joint arthroplasty: A survey of the AAHKS membership to understand the utilization, motivations, and perceptions of total joint surgeons. J Arthroplasty.2020; 35: 3474-3481.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.072.
15.
BendichIVigdorchikJMSharmaAKMaymanDJSculcoPKAndersonC, et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques. J Arthroplasty.2022; 37: 1124-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.085.
16.
CurtisGLTariqMBBrigatiDPFaourMHigueraCABarsoumWK, et al. Validation of a novel surgical data capturing system following total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty.2018; 33: 3479-83. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.011.
17.
OME Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedics. Implementing a scientifically valid, cost-effective, and scalable data collection system at point of care: The cleveland clinic OME cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2019; 101: 458-64. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00767.
18.
SinclairSTMcConaghyKMEmaraAKKlikaAKPiuzziNS. Reporting of Comorbidities in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Literature. JBJS Rev. 2021; 9. Tjhe. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.21.00028.
19.
CampbellAEmaraAKKlikaAPiuzziNS. Does Implant Selection Affect Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.01931.
20.
SinclairSTKlikaAKJinYPiuzziNSHigueraCAStrnadGJ, et al. The impact of surgeon variability on patient-reported outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2022; 37: S479-S487.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.100.
21.
OrrMNKlikaAKGagnierJJBhandariMPiuzziNS. A Call for a Standardized Approach to Reporting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Clinical Relevance Ratio. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00030.
22.
OrrMNKlikaAKEmaraAKPiuzziNSBarsoumWKMolloyRM, et al. Dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty associated with preoperative patient-reported outcome phenotypes. J Arthroplasty.2022; 37: S498-509. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.042.
23.
ClementNDGastonPBellASimpsonPMacphersonGHamiltonDF, et al. Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res.2021; 10: 22-30. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.101.BJR-2020-0161.R1.
24.
BukowskiBRAndersonPKhlopasAChughtaiMMontMAIllgenRL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int.2016; 29: 303-8.
25.
HadleyCJGrossmanELMontMASalemHSCataniFMarcovigiA. Robotic-assisted versus manually implanted total hip arthroplasty: A clinical and radiographic comparison. Surg Technol Int.2020; 37: 371-6.
26.
KarunaratneSDuanMPappasEFritschBBoyleRGuptaS, et al. The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop.2019; 43: 1283-95. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4140-3.
27.
ChenXXiongJWangPZhuSQiWPengH, et al. Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J.2018; 94: 335.1-341. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135352.
28.
BargarWLPariseCAHankinsAMarlenNACampanelliVNetravaliNA. Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2018; 33: 810-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.066.
29.
MaldonadoDRGoCCKyinCRosinskyPJShapiraJLallAC, et al. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty is more cost-effective than manual total hip arthroplasty: A markov model analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2021; 29: e168-77. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00498.
30.
RemilyEANabetASaxOCDouglasSJPervaizSSDelanoisRE. Impact of robotic assisted surgery on outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today.2021; 9: 46-9. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.003.
31.
DeClaireJHWakelinEAChattingerKPlaskosC. Modern robotics platform associated with reduced 90-day complications in hospital setting. Technology and Health Care. 2023; 1-13. doi: 10.3233/THC-231198.
32.
RedmondJMGuptaAHammarstedtJEPetrakosAEFinchNADombBG. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2015; 30: 50-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.003.
33.
KayaniBKonanSAyuobAAyyadSHaddadFS. The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev.2019; 4: 618-25. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180088.
34.
ChaiWGuoRPuahKLJerabekSChenJTangP. Use of robotic-arm assisted technique in complex primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg.2020; 12: 686-91. doi: 10.1111/os.12659.
35.
VigdorchikJMSharmaAKAggarwalVKCarrollKMJerabekSA. The use of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arthroplast Today.2020; 6: 770-6. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.022.
36.
GuptaARedmondJMHammarstedtJEPetrakosAEVemulaSPDombBG. Does robotic-assisted computer navigation affect acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty in the obese patient? A comparison study. J Arthroplasty.2015; 30: 2204-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.062.
37.
OngCBBuchanGBJHechtIICJKendoffDOHommaYKamathAF. Fluoroscopy-based robotic assistance for total hip arthroplasty improves acetabular cup placement accuracy for obese patients compared to the manual, fluoroscopic-assisted technique. Technology and Health Care. 2023; 1-10. doi: 10.3233/THC-231127.
