Abstract:Purpose: Although a trend of an improved alignment with robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA) over conventional methods has surfaced from recent series, it is unknown whether these results translate into meaningful enhancements in postoperative outcomes. To address this lack in the literature, we compared the perioperative morbidity and mortality with robotic and conventional THA in a large national cohort of 367,894 patients. We hypothesized that no significant differences would exist in the outcomes between the two groups. Methods: Records were extracted from 2016-2019 from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project which is the largest in-patient database in the United States. From 367,894 THAs, robotics were employed for 7,863 patients. The remaining 360,031 conventional THAs served as controls. The two groups were compared for demographics, admission, and hospital stay details including costs, and mortality and morbidity data including medical and surgical complications. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data while analytical statistics including t-tests, chi-squared tests, Fischer exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were used for perioperative outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p<0.005. Results: Demographic distributions between robotic and conventional THA groups displayed similar age and sex characteristics. Shorter mean lengths of stay (1.87 days) were seen in robotic THA versus conventional THA (2.33 days) while higher costs were noted for the former (mean $68,686.71 vs $66,840.39) (p<0.005). Low overall mortality (0.03% robotic, 0.09% conventional) was seen in both groups (p>0.005). Higher comparative incidences of anemia, acute renal failure, and pneumonia were seen in conventional THA (p<0.005) while no significant differences were noted for other complications including myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and cardiac arrest (p>0.005). Among others, lower dislocation rates, mechanical complications, periprosthetic joint infection, and periprosthetic fractures were seen with robotic THA (p<0.005). Wound complications and superficial infection rates did not differ between the two groups (p>0.005). Conclusions: Evidence has emerged from our results to support more routine adaptation of the robotic option of performing a THA. These can be based on lower local, systemic, and mechanical complications as demonstrated by the present study. Further evaluation of these results in follow-up would help establish the foothold of robotic surgery in total hip replacement in the modern context.

A Radiological Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Techniques in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Radiographic evaluation of robot-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

CT-based, robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (Mako) through anterior approach provides improved cup placement accuracy but no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to conventional technique

Which way forward? Comparing radiological outcomes using three different surgical approaches in robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing CT-based planning with conventional total hip arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty

A new designed full process coverage robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty utilizing a fluoroscopy-guided system produced similar cup accuracy and precision relative to a computerized tomography-based robotic platform

Improved accuracy of a novel fluoroscopy-based robotically assisted THA system compared to manual THA

Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA

Lower 90-day inpatient readmission and 1-year reoperation in patients undergoing robotic versus manual total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach

Use of a fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system produced greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes at one year compared to manual, fluoroscopic-assisted technique

A new seven-axis robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system improves component positioning: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty outperforms manual technique in obese and overweight patients: a prospective comparative study

Adoption of Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Reliable Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at Minimum Two-Year Follow Up

Lower Intraoperative and Immediate Postoperative Complications in Robotic Versus Conventional Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Over 360,000 Patients

Direct anterior approach with conventional instruments versus robotic posterolateral approach in elective total hip replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a case–control study

Outcomes following robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty

Conventional vs Robotic Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Surgical Time, Transfusion rates, Length of Stay, Complications and Learning Curve

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is more advantageous for knees with severe deformity: a randomized controlled trial study design.

Accuracy of robotic arm-assisted versus computed tomography-based navigation in total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach: a retrospective study

Early Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Robotic-arm-assisted versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial