Wu Zhenhua, Zheng Yin, Zhang Xiwei
Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beita Street, Shenyang, 110847, Liaoning Province, China.
Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beiling Street, Shenyang, 116600, Liaoning Province, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Dec 19;19(1):846. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05279-6.
With the increasing demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the inevitable trend of orthopedic robots and artificial intelligence in the future, it is necessary to explore the safety and effectiveness of orthopedic robots in THA. Currently, most orthopedic robots are in the early stages of development, and evaluating their clinical efficacy can assist in making informed decisions for practical use.
To explore the advantages of 7 types of robot-assisted THA with respect to 5 indicators.
Literature from databases such as CNKI, PubMed, and Web of Science was retrieved up to July 17, 2024. Literature evaluation was conducted via Review Manager 5.4, and a network meta-analysis was performed via RStudio (version 4.4.1).
A total of 17 studies involving 1741 patients were included. In direct comparisons, the operation time was longer for MAKO (MD = 19; CI = 6.7, 31), TRex (MD = 37, CI = 20, 54) and YUANHUA (MD = 35, CI = 4.2, 66) than for C-THA. The leg length discrepancy (LLD) was smaller for TRex (MD = -3.4, CI = -6.6, -0.36) and RO (MD = -4.3, CI = -8.7, -0.064) than for C-THA. In the comprehensive best probability ranking, operation time [C-THA (96%) > TJ (68%) > RO (53.2%) > MAKO (53%) > LA (45%) > YU (21%) > TR (13%)], blood loss [TJ (89%) > C-THA (50%) > LA (49%) > YU (42%) > MAKO (20%)], LLD [RO (83%) > TR (75%) > MAKO (61%) > TJ (51%) > YU (43%) > JJ (40%) > C-THA (24%) > LA (22%)], HHS [RO (65%) > C-THA (55%) > LA (51%) > TR (50%) > JJ (48%) > YU (46%) > MAKO (37%)], and infection [TJ (77%) > C-THA (67%) > MAKO (44%) > RO (10%)].
Each of the seven types of RA-THA and C-THA has its own advantages, with TJ and RO RA-THA being slightly more prominent. Overall, in terms of safety and effectiveness, RA-THA is generally superior to C-THA, although further development is still needed.
随着全髋关节置换术（THA）需求的不断增加以及未来骨科机器人和人工智能发展的必然趋势，探索骨科机器人在THA中的安全性和有效性很有必要。目前，大多数骨科机器人处于研发初期，评估其临床疗效有助于为实际应用做出明智决策。
探讨7种机器人辅助THA在5项指标方面的优势。
检索中国知网、PubMed和Web of Science等数据库截至2024年7月17日的文献。通过Review Manager 5.4进行文献评价，并通过RStudio（版本4.4.1）进行网络Meta分析。
共纳入17项研究，涉及1741例患者。在直接比较中，MAKO（MD = 19；CI = 6.7，31）、TRex（MD = 37，CI = 20，54）和YUANHUA（MD = 35，CI = 4.2，66）的手术时间比传统全髋关节置换术（C-THA）长。TRex（MD = -3.4，CI = -6.6，-0.36）和RO（MD = -4.3，CI = -8.7，-0.064）的下肢长度差异（LLD）比C-THA小。在综合最佳概率排名中，手术时间[C-THA（96%）> TJ（68%）> RO（53.2%）> MAKO（53%）> LA（45%）> YU（21%）> TR（13%）]、失血量[TJ（89%）> C-THA（50%）> LA（49%）> YU（42%）> MAKO（20%）]、LLD[RO（83%）> TR（75%）> MAKO（61%）> TJ（51%）> YU（43%）> JJ（4o%）> C-THA（24%）> LA（22%）]、髋关节Harris评分（HHS）[RO（65%）> C-THA（55%）> LA（51%）> TR（50%）> JJ（48%）> YU（46%）> MAKO（37%）]和感染率[TJ（77%）> C-THA（67%）> MAKO（44%）> RO（10%）]。
七种机器人辅助THA和C-THA各有优势，其中TJ和RO机器人辅助THA略为突出。总体而言，在安全性和有效性方面，机器人辅助THA虽仍需进一步发展，但总体优于C-THA。
