Chai Wei, Xu Chi, Guo Ren-Wen, Kong Xiang-Peng, Fu Jun, Tang Pei-Fu, Chen Ji-Ying
Senior Department of Orthopedics, the Fourth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation, Beijing, China.
Int Orthop. 2022 Apr;46(4):769-777. doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05232-w. Epub 2022 Jan 8.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with hip-dislocation dysplasia remains challenging. This study aims to evaluate whether these patients may benefit from robotic-assisted techniques.
We reviewed 135 THAs (108 conventional THAs and 27 robotic-assisted THAs) for Crowe type III or IV from January 2017 to August 2019 in our institution. Robotic-assisted THAs were matched with conventional THAs at a 1:1 ratio (27 hips each group) using propensity score matching. The accuracy of cup positioning and clinical outcomes were compared between groups.
The inclination of the cup for conventional THAs and robotic THAs was 42.1 ± 5.7 and 41.3 ± 4.6 (p = 0.574), respectively. The anteversion of the cup for conventional THAs was significantly greater than that of robotic THAs (29.5 ± 8.1 and 18.0 ± 4.6; p < 0.001), respectively. The ratio of the acetabular cup in the Lewinnek safe zone was 37% (10/27) in conventional THAs and 96.3% (26/27) in robotic THAs (p < 0.001). Robotic THAs did not achieve better leg length discrepancy than that of conventional THAs (- 0.4 ± 10.9 mm vs. 0.4 ± 8.8 mm, p = 0.774). There was no difference in Harris Hip Score and WOMAC Osteoarthritis index between groups at the 2-year follow-up. No dislocation occurred in all cases at the final follow-up.
Robotic-assisted THA for patients with high dislocation improves the accuracy of the implantation of the acetabular component with respect to safe zone.
髋关节脱位发育不良患者的全髋关节置换术(THA)仍然具有挑战性。本研究旨在评估这些患者是否能从机器人辅助技术中获益。
我们回顾了2017年1月至2019年8月在我院进行的135例针对Crowe III型或IV型的THA(108例传统THA和27例机器人辅助THA)。使用倾向得分匹配法将机器人辅助THA与传统THA按1:1比例匹配(每组27髋)。比较两组之间髋臼杯定位的准确性和临床结果。
传统THA和机器人辅助THA的髋臼杯倾斜度分别为42.1±5.7和41.3±4.6(p = 0.574)。传统THA的髋臼杯前倾角显著大于机器人辅助THA(分别为29.5±8.1和18.0±4.6;p < 0.001)。传统THA中髋臼杯位于Lewinnek安全区内的比例为37%(10/27),机器人辅助THA中为96.3%(26/27)(p < 0.001)。机器人辅助THA在肢体长度差异方面并未比传统THA表现更好(-0.4±10.9 mm对0.4±8.8 mm,p = 0.774)。在2年随访时,两组之间的Harris髋关节评分和WOMAC骨关节炎指数没有差异。最终随访时所有病例均未发生脱位。
对于高位脱位患者,机器人辅助THA提高了髋臼组件在安全区内植入的准确性。