Trinity Health, IHA, Ann Arbor Orthopaedic Specialists, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Trinity Health, Michigan Heart, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Surg Technol Int. 2024 Jul 15;44:311-319. doi: 10.52198/24.STI.44.OS1772.
Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) provides an alternative to fluoroscopic guidance, thus reducing radiation exposure for orthopaedic surgeons. This study was performed to assess the learning curve associated with the adoption of RA-THA using the direct anterior approach (DAA) with regard to surgical time, use of fluoroscopy, and implant placement. In addition, we compared complication rates and patient-reported outcome scores between both cohorts. A case report of an RA-THA is also presented.
This was a retrospective, non-randomized evaluation of the learning curve by assessing surgical time on a consecutive series of 89 DAA cases performed by a single surgeon. There were 53 cases that had manual THA with fluoroscopy and 36 cases with RA-THA. All cases had an acetabular component placement target of 40° inclination and 20° anteversion. An independent reviewer blinded to surgical technique used the Widmer method to measure acetabular inclination and version. Patient demographics were similar for both groups.
The mean surgical time for the manual fluoroscopic group was 88 ± 21 minutes and 101 ± 14 minutes for the RA-THA group. After 15 RA-THA cases, surgical time reached time neutral compared to the manual fluoroscopic group. The first 17 RA-THA cases utilized fluoroscopy to verify implant position until the surgeon became comfortable with the accuracy of the RA-THA system. After case 17, fluoroscopy was abandoned in all subsequent RA-THA cases. The mean radiation dose delivered to the surgical field was 5.61 ± 5.71 mGy. Manual THA with fluoroscopy resulted in a mean acetabular inclination of 41.3 ± 4.4° and a mean anteversion of 22.4 ± 3.0°. The RA-THA resulted in a mean acetabular inclination of 42.0 ± 4.2° and a mean anteversion of 22.3 ± 3.9°. There was no noted change in RA-THA placement accuracy after case 17, when fluoroscopy was eliminated from the surgical workflow. There were no statistical differences between the manual fluoroscopic and robotic-assisted groups with respect to complications and clinical PROM outcomes.
The DAA THA can be performed with RA-THA and achieve comparable acetabular placement without fluoroscopy. Surgical time was higher for the RA-THA group during the learning curve, but then decreased and was consistent with the manual fluoroscopic group after 15 cases.
机器人辅助全髋关节置换术 (RA-THA) 为骨科医生提供了一种替代透视引导的方法,从而减少了辐射暴露。本研究旨在评估使用直接前入路 (DAA) 进行 RA-THA 时与手术时间、透视使用和植入物放置相关的学习曲线。此外,我们还比较了两组之间的并发症发生率和患者报告的结果评分。还报告了一个 RA-THA 的病例报告。
这是一项回顾性、非随机的学习曲线评估,通过评估一位外科医生连续进行的 89 例 DAA 手术的手术时间来完成。其中 53 例为手动 THA 伴透视,36 例为 RA-THA。所有病例髋臼组件的放置目标为 40°倾斜度和 20°前倾角。一位对手术技术不了解的独立审查员使用 Widmer 方法测量髋臼的倾斜度和前倾角。两组患者的人口统计学特征相似。
手动透视组的平均手术时间为 88 ± 21 分钟,RA-THA 组为 101 ± 14 分钟。在 15 例 RA-THA 病例后,手术时间与手动透视组相比达到时间中性。在前 17 例 RA-THA 病例中,使用透视来验证植入物的位置,直到外科医生对 RA-THA 系统的准确性感到满意。在第 17 例病例后,所有后续的 RA-THA 病例都放弃了透视。手术野的平均辐射剂量为 5.61 ± 5.71 mGy。手动 THA 伴透视导致髋臼平均倾斜度为 41.3 ± 4.4°,平均前倾角为 22.4 ± 3.0°。RA-THA 导致髋臼平均倾斜度为 42.0 ± 4.2°,平均前倾角为 22.3 ± 3.9°。在第 17 例病例后,当手术流程中消除了透视时,RA-THA 的植入物定位准确性没有明显变化。在并发症和临床 PROM 结果方面,手动透视组和机器人辅助组之间没有统计学差异。
DAA-THA 可采用 RA-THA 进行,且无需透视即可获得可比较的髋臼放置效果。在学习曲线期间,RA-THA 组的手术时间较高,但在 15 例病例后减少,并与手动透视组一致。