Suppr超能文献

一项前瞻性随机对照试验,比较基于 CT 的规划与传统全髋关节置换术与机器人辅助全髋关节置换术。

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

机构信息

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.

出版信息

Bone Joint J. 2024 Apr 1;106-B(4):324-335. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.106B4.BJJ-2023-1045.R1.

Abstract

AIMS

Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes.

摘要

目的

在全髋关节置换术(THA)中,实现准确的植入物定位和恢复原生髋关节生物力学是外科医生控制的关键技术目标。本研究的主要目的是比较机器人辅助 THA 与传统 THA 中术前计划的髋关节旋转中心(COR)的可重复性。

方法

这是一项前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT),纳入了 60 例患有症状性髋关节骨关节炎的患者,他们分别接受了传统 THA(CO THA)和机器人辅助 THA(RO THA)。两组患者均接受术前和术后 CT 扫描,并使用机器人软件创建患者特异性计划。术后 6 周,在 CT 扫描图像上测量 COR、联合偏移量、髋臼方位和下肢长度差异。

结果

在包括脊柱骨盆活动度在内的任何基线特征方面,两组均无显著差异。RO THA 组术中实现计划水平 COR 的绝对误差中位数为 1.4mm(IQR 0.87 至 3.42),而 CO THA 组为 4.3mm(IQR 3 至 6.8;p<0.001);RO THA 组术中实现计划垂直 COR 的平均误差为 0.91mm(SD 0.73),而 CO THA 组为 2.3mm(SD 1.3;p<0.001);RO THA 组术中实现计划联合偏移量的中位数为 2mm(IQR 0.97 至 5.45),而 CO THA 组为 3.9mm(IQR 2 至 7.9;p=0.019)。RO THA 组在实现期望的髋臼组件定位方面具有更高的准确性(前倾角和倾斜角的均方根误差分别为 2.6 和 1.3,而 8.9 和 5.3),下肢长度也得到了更好的矫正(平均 0.6mm 比 1.4mm;p<0.001)。两组患者在基线和 1 年时的患者报告结局测量指标无差异。RO THA 组术后需要的物理治疗次数更少(中位数 6 次(IQR 4.5 至 8),而 CO THA 组为 8 次(IQR 6 至 11;p=0.005)。

结论

本 RCT 表明,THA 中使用机器人臂辅助可提高恢复原生 COR 的准确性,更好地保持联合偏移量、下肢长度矫正,并在实现期望的髋臼组件定位方面具有更高的准确性。需要通过长期和注册数据进一步评估这些发现是否转化为改善植入物存活率和功能结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验