Abstract:BackgroundImproper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored.Questions/purposesWe therefore sought to compare THA with a robotic-assisted posterior approach with manual alignment techniques through a posterior approach, using a matched-pair controlled study design, to assess whether the use of the robot made it more likely for the acetabular cup to be positioned in the safe zones described by Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al.MethodsBetween September 2008 and September 2012, 160 THAs were performed by the senior surgeon. Sixty-two patients (38.8%) underwent THA using a conventional posterior approach, 69 (43.1%) underwent robotic-assisted THA using the posterior approach, and 29 (18.1%) underwent radiographic-guided anterior-approach THAs. From September 2008 to June 2011, all patients were offered anterior or posterior approaches regardless of BMI and anatomy. Since introduction of the robot in June 2011, all THAs were performed using the robotic technique through the posterior approach, unless a patient specifically requested otherwise. The radiographic cup positioning of the robotic-assisted THAs was compared with a matched-pair control group of conventional THAs performed by the same surgeon through the same posterior approach. The safe zone (inclination, 30°–50°; anteversion, 5°–25°) described by Lewinnek et al. and the modified safe zone (inclination, 30°–45°; anteversion, 5°–25°) of Callanan et al. were used for cup placement assessment. Matching criteria were gender, age ± 5 years, and (BMI) ± 7 units. After exclusions, a total of 50 THAs were included in each group. Strong interobserver and intraobserver correlations were found for all radiographic measurements (r > 0.82; p < 0.001).ResultsOne hundred percent (50/50) of the robotic-assisted THAs were within the safe zone described by Lewinnek et al. compared with 80% (40/50) of the conventional THAs (p = 0.001). Ninety-two percent (46/50) of robotic-assisted THAs were within the modified safe zone described by Callanan et al. compared with 62% (31/50) of conventional THAs p (p = 0.001). The odds ratios for an implanted cup out of the safe zones of Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al. were zero and 0.142, respectively (95% CI, 0.044, 0.457).ConclusionsUse of the robot allowed for improvement in placement of the cup in both safe zones, an important parameter that plays a significant role in long-term success of THA. However, whether the radiographic improvements we observed will translate into clinical benefits for patients—such as reductions in component impingement, acetabular wear, and prosthetic dislocations, or in terms of improved longevity—remains unproven.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does robot-assisted surgery reduce leg length discrepancy in total hip replacement? Robot-assisted posterior approach versus direct anterior approach and manual posterior approach: a propensity score-matching study

[Impact of Robot Assistance on Restoration of Limb Length and Offset Distance in Total Hip Arthroplasty].

Length of Stay and Discharge Disposition After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Large Multicenter Propensity Matched Comparison of Robotic-Assisted and Manual Techniques

Does Approach Matter in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Comparison of Early Re-operations Between Direct Anterior and Postero-lateral Approach

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

Accuracy of total knee arthroplasty assisted by a kind of homemade robot: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Total Hip Arthroplasty with Robotic Arm Assistance for Precise Cup Positioning: A Case-Control Study

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

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

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

[Effect of the Acetabular Cup Positioning and Leg Length Restoration after Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Robotic-Assisted Surgery System].

Comparison of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Acetabular Cup Placement in THA: A Matched-pair Controlled Study

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

Robotic assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Precise Acetabular Prosthesis Positioning Using a Novel Robot‐Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty System: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

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

The LANCET robotic system can improve surgical efficiency in total hip arthroplasty: A prospective randomized, multicenter, parallel-controlled clinical trial

Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Results in Shorter Navigation Working Time With Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared to Computer-Navigated Total Knee Arthroplasty

Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review

Comparative Study of Alternative Methods for Measuring Leg Length Discrepancy after Robot-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Fewer Dislocations after Total Hip Arthroplasty with Robotic Assistance or Fluoroscopic Guidance