Abstract:Introduction Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures. Survival rates from 90% at 10 years to 93% at 20 years have been reported in different studies. Differences in implant and patient characteristics can undoubtedly explain some of this variability observed in prosthesis durability, but the effect of surgical technique and implant orientation cannot be ignored. Therefore, many intraoperative methods (anatomic landmarks, intraoperative x-ray, fluoroscopy, navigation, and robotic surgery) have been attempted to avoid acetabular component malpositioning. Although postoperative computed tomography (CT) is accepted as the gold standard for the measurement of acetabular anteversion, it remains controversial in respect of costs and radiation exposure. The aim of this study was to examine how acetabular component orientation was affected in robotic and conventional THA operations performed by two surgeons with right-hand dominance. Material and methods The study included 113 primary THA operations performed on 113 patients between 2017 and 2022 in two groups: (i) robotic THA (Mako, Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (55 patients) and (ii) conventional THA (58 patients). The patients comprised 51 males and 62 females. THA was performed on 54 right-side hips and 59 left-side hips. The operations were performed by two orthopaedic surgeons, each with 20 years of arthroplasty experience, on all the patients in the lateral decubitus position with an anterolateral approach. In all the cases, the orientation of the acetabular component was 40° inclination and 20° anteversion. Difficult THA procedures (patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), a history of hip surgery, revision THA, defect or deformity of the acetabulum, a history of scoliosis or lumbar posterior surgery, or those requiring proximal femoral osteotomy) were excluded from the study. Using the Liaw and Lewinnek methods, the acetabular component anteversion was measured on the radiographs taken in the optimal position postoperatively and the acetabular cup inclination angles were measured on the pelvis radiographs. The groups were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Pearson Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests. The limits were accepted as 40±5° for inclination and 20±5° for anteversion. Results No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of age, gender, or operated side. No statistically significant difference was determined between the optimal acetabular cup inclination angles of the robotic and conventional THA groups (p = 0.79). No statistically significant difference was determined between the optimal acetabular cup anteversion angles of the left and right conventional THA groups. Statistically significantly better results were determined in the robotic group in respect of acetabular cup anteversion (p<0,001). Conclusion The optimal orientation of the acetabular component is a key factor for successful THA. Otherwise, revision surgery is inevitable for reasons such as instability, impingement, or increased wear. The results of this study demonstrated that robotic surgery was superior to the conventional method in the placement of the acetabular component in the desired orientation.

Correcting Pelvic Obliquity in the Lateral Position to Improve Acetabular Component Orientation During Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The Influence of Pelvic Tilt on the Anteversion Angle of the Acetabular Prosthesis

The numerical density and morphology of synaptic contacts stained either by Os-UL or by E-PTA

A Practical Method for Acetabulum Component Assembling in Total Hip Arthroplasty with Lateral Position

Pelvic Tilt Angle Differences Between Symptom-Free Young Subjects and Elderly Patients Scheduled for THA: The Rationale for Tilt-Adjusted Acetabular Cup Implantation

Fluoroscopy-guided direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty provides more accurate component positions in the supine position than in the lateral position

Reliability and accuracy of intraoperative fluoroscopy assessment of acetabular cup anteversion in supine direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty

Intraoperative Technology Use Improves Accuracy of Functional Safe Zone Targeting in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Is the Acetabular Cup Orientation Different in Robot-Assisted and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty With Right-Handed Surgeons Using an Anterolateral Approach?

Radiological comparison of acetabular anteversion on cross-table lateral roentgenograms and computed tomograms functional outcomes in total hip arthroplasty

A Computer Modeling-Based Target Zone for Transposition Osteotomy of the Acetabulum in Patients with Hip Dysplasia

Functional Acetabular Component Positioning During Direct Anterior Approach Hip Arthroplasty Using a Novel Three-Dimensional Virtual Mesh Imaging System With Fluoroscopy

[Effect of Pelvic Rotation on the Placement Angle of Acetabular Prosthesis in Total Hip Arthroplasty].

Computer‐Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves Acetabular Prosthesis Placement Accuracy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Radiological comparison of acetabular anteversion on anteroposterior roentgenograms and computed tomograms functional outcomes in total hip arthroplasty

Radiological comparison of acetabular anteversion on roentgenograms and computed tomograms functional outcomes in total hip arthroplasty

Influence of hip prosthesis position on postoperative gait in symptomatic hip osteoarthritis secondary to hip dysplasia patients after primary total hip arthroplasty: a short-term follow-up study

How does pelvic rotation or tilt affect radiographic measurement of acetabular component inclination angle during THA?

Anterolateral Approach May Be Superior to Posterolateral Approach in Controlling Postoperative Lower Limb Discrepancy in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Early Postoperative Change in Hip Rotation Angle and Factors Contributing to It for Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty

Current Concepts and Technologies in Acetabular Cup Positioning for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty