Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty and traditional total hip arthroplasty.
10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20250630
- Author:
Hao YANG
1
;
Wen-Han FU
1
;
Ming LU
1
;
Zong-Sheng YIN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Joint Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui, China.
- Publication Type:English Abstract
- Keywords:
End-stage hip disease;
Robotic-assisted surgery;
Total hip arthroplasty
- MeSH:
Humans;
Male;
Female;
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods*;
Middle Aged;
Aged;
Adult;
Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
2025;38(10):1001-1008
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To explore and analyze the clinical efficacy of robotic-assisted versus traditional total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS:A total of 186 patients with end-stage hip joint diseases treated from January 2023 to April 2025 were selected as the research subjects. Among them, 85 patients were screened out using propensity score matching and divided into two groups according to different treatment methods:manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) group (mTHA group) and robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) group (rTHA group). In mTHA group, there were 50 patients, including 18 males and 32 females, age ranged from 37 to 78 years old with a mean of (60.12±10.93) years old;body mass index (BMI) ranged from 16.6 to 32.0 kg·m-2 with an average of (23.98±3.78) kg·m-2;27 cases involved the left hip, and 23 cases involved the right hip. In the rTHA group, there were 35 patients, including 14 males and 21 females, age ranged from 31 to 76 years old with an average of (57.14±12.18) years old;the BMI ranged from 17.1 to 33.0 kg·m-2 with a mean of (22.76±2.54) kg·m-2;13 cases involved the left hip, and 22 cases involved the right hip. The following parameters were analyzed and compared between the two groups:acetabular anteversion angle, acetabular abduction angle, difference in combined offset, difference in lower limb length, proportion of acetabula located in the Lewinnek safe zone after surgery, operation time, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score, and Harris hip score (HHS).
RESULTS:All patients were followed up for 3 to 9 months, with an average of (6.8±1.3) months. In rTHA group and mTHA group, the abduction angles were (40.73±4.62)° and (40.95±4.71)° respectively;the differences in combined offset were (0.42±0.28) mm and (0.60±0.23) mm respectively;the WOMAC scores were(20.9±5.4) and (20.2±4.6) respectively;and the VAS were (1.1±1.0) and (1.0±0.8) respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the above indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in the following aspects(P<0.05):the differences in lower limb length were (3.17±0.15) mm and (5.28±0.47) mm respectively;the postoperative acetabular anteversion angles were(22.84±2.83)° and (25.72±3.29)° respectively;the HHS were (80.7±5.5) and (74.8±6.3) respectively;and the operation times were (148.20±46.82) minutes and (81.84±18.76) minutes respectively.
CONCLUSION:Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty demonstrates superior implant accuracy and improved early functional recovery compared with traditional manual THA. Nevertheless, it is associated with significantly longer operation time. Long-term prosthesis survival rate requires further follow-up verification.
