Abstract
Introduction
Robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty helps acetabular preparation and implantation with the assistance of a robotic arm. A computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system is also helpful for acetabular preparation and implantation, however, there is no report to compare these methods. The purpose of this study is to compare the acetabular cup position between the assistance of the robotic arm and the CT-based navigation system in total hip arthroplasty for patients with osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip.
Methods
We studied 31 hips of 28 patients who underwent the robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty (MAKO group) between August 2018 and March 2019 and 119 hips of 112 patients who received THA under CT-based navigation (CT-navi group) between September 2015 and November 2018. The preoperative diagnosis of all patients was osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip. They received the same cementless cup (Trident, Stryker). Robotic-assisted hip arthroplasty were performed by four surgeons while THA under CT-based navigation were performed by single senior surgeon. Target angle was 40 degree of radiological cup inclination (RI) and 15 degree of radiological cup anteversion (RA) in all patients. Propensity score matching was used to match the patients by gender, age, weight, height, BMI, and surgical approach in the two groups and 30 patients in each group were included in this study. Postoperative cup position was assessed using postoperative anterior-posterior pelvic radiograph by the Lewinnek's methods. The differences between target and postoperative cup position were investigated.
Results
The acetabular cup position of all cases in both Mako and CT-navi group within Lewinnek's safe zone (RI: 40±10 degree; RA: 15±10 degree) in group were within this zone. Three was no significant difference of RI between Mako and CT-navi group (40.0 ± 2.1 degree vs 39.7± 3.6 degree). RA was 15.0 ± 1.2 degree and 17.0 ± 1.9 degree in MAKO group and in CT-navi group, respectively, with significant difference (p<0.001). The differences of RA between target and postoperative angle were smaller in MAKO group than CT-navi group (0.60± 1.05 degree vs 2.34± 1.40 degree, p<0.001). The difference or RI in MAKO group was smaller than in CT-navi, however, there was no significance between them (1.67± 1.27 degree vs 2.39± 2.68 degree, p=0.197).
Conclusions
Both the assistance of the robotic arm and the CT-based navigation system were helpful to achieve the acetabular cup implantation, however, MAKO system achieved more accurate acetabular cup implantation than CT-based navigation system in total hip arthroplasty for the patients with OA secondary to DDH. Longer follow-up is necessary to investigate the clinical outcome.
