CT Scan-Based Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Do Today’s Highest-Quality Studies Tell Us?

Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to restore function and reduce pain for patients suffering from hip pathologies. However, some procedures require revision THA, with the most common reasons including: mechanical failure, aseptic loosening, infection, and component malposition leading to dislocations. Computed tomography (CT) scan-based, three-dimensional imaging operating techniques can help address some of these issues by helping to provide more optimal implant positioning, which can potentially confer improved outcomes. To date, only a few studies have evaluated the utilization of CT scan-based robotic-arm assisted THA in total hip arthroplasty, and those that do are not necessarily of the high-methodological quality. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to select the most recent and good- to high-quality studies focusing on robotic-assisted THA, to help provide a more comprehensive representation of postoperative outcomes. Specifically, we evaluated each study independently as well as performed a cumulative assessment of this most recent high-quality data. Materials and Methods: An extensive, cross-platform search of total hip arthroplasty on August 1, 2022 was performed. Studies were included only if they addressed robotic-assisted THA in comparison to manual techniques. Additional inclusion criteria consisted of studies scoring excellent (100 to 85 points) or good (84 to 70 points) based on their Coleman methodology score. Studies were evaluated as individual pieces of work, as well as a cumulative assessment. Specific outcomes evaluated were: component placement in safe zones, leg- length discrepancies, dislocation rates, clinical outcomes, patient clinical scores, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), lengths of stay, and costs. Results: Overall, 24 studies were included for analyses. CT scan-based robotic-arm assisted THA had some potential key advantages as compared to manual techniques. Specifically, robotic-assisted THA was associated with more accurate component placement in safe zones, fewer chances of leg-length discrepancies, and lower risks of dislocation. Patient satisfaction and reported outcome measures were superior for CT scan-based robotic-arm assisted THA. Costs were also lower. Overall, 23 of 24 studies were positive for this technology, with one study of cases done between 2010 and 2014 more neutral. The robot led to positive findings for component placement in safe zones, leg-length discrepancies, dislocation rates, clinical outcomes, PROMS, lengths of stay, and costs. Conclusion: The current literature suggests potential advantages for CT scan-based robotic-arm assisted THA compared to manual THA. Surgeons should consider CT scan-based robotic-arm assisted THA for their patients given the multiple added benefits of improved clinical scores and PROMS, less dislocations (with a few exceptions reported), more component placements in safe zones, less leg-length discrepancies, decreased lengths of stay, and decreased episode-of-care costs.