Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2018; 02(02): 076-080
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641756
Special Section Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Robotics in Total Hip Arthroplasty—A Current Review

Mark W. Allen
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The CORE Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
,
Steven L. Myerthall
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The CORE Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
,
David J. Jacofsky
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The CORE Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 December 2017

18 January 2018

Publication Date:
27 April 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity among surgeons and patients alike. This technology has been available clinically in some form for over two decades. This technology claims to improve component positioning, decrease complications, and improve clinical outcomes. Historical and modern systems have shown both advantages and disadvantages while assisting THA procedures. Robotic arms and milling systems have been utilized with both fully active and semi active technology platforms designed to perform or assist the surgeon with various portions of the procedure. The future design objectives include precise planning and even further improved consistent intraoperative execution. Robotics has proven to be beneficial, reliable, and cost effective in numerus other industries and is likely to continue to expand in the field of orthopaedic surgery. This article will review the historical and current technology being utilized for robotic-assisted THA.

Keywords

robotic-assisted surgery - robot - MAKO - ROBODOC - total hip arthroplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Pierce TP, Jauregui JJ, Mont MA. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13 (01) 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Pierce TP, Mont MA. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015; 12 (06) 727-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 de Steiger RN, Liu Y-L, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (08) 635-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 NBS/RIA Robotics Research Workshop: Proceedings of the NBS/RIA Workshop on Robotic Research. Gaithersburg, MD
    PubMed
  • 6 Netravali NA, Shen F, Park Y, Bargar WL. A perspective on robotic assistance for knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013 (2, Suppl): 970703-970709
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R. , et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (22) 2078-2086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wu L-D, Hahne HJ, Hassenpflug J. The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 2004; 5 (10) 1270-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mazoochian F, Pellengahr C, Huber A, Kircher J, Refior HJ, Jansson V. Low accuracy of stem implantation in THR using the CASPAR-system: anteversion measurements in 10 hips. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (03) 261-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Siebel T, Käfer W. [Clinical outcome following robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a controlled and prospective study of seventy-one patients]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2005; 143 (04) 391-398
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bargar WL, Bauer A, Börner M. Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (354) 82-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; (463) 31-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, Kim YH, Yoo MC, Rhyu KH. Causes and patterns of aborting a robot-assisted arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 621-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguez y Baena F, Gomes P, Cobb J, Davies BL. The first clinical application of a “hands-on” robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 2001; 6 (06) 329-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (07) 1054-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Song E-K, Seon J-K, Park S-J, Jung WB, Park H-W, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (07) 1069-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464 (464) 111-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hagio K, Sugano N, Takashina M, Nishii T, Yoshikawa H, Ochi T. Effectiveness of the ROBODOC system in preventing intraoperative pulmonary embolism. Acta Orthop Scand 2003; 74 (03) 264-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bargar WL, Parise CA, Hankins A, Marlen NA, Campanelli V, Netravali NA. Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (03) 810-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Schweizer ML, Callaghan JJ. The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 47-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen RL. 2nd. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2014; XXIX: 303-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 329-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgren R. , et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2015; 25 (06) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nawabi DH, Conditt MA, Ranawat AS. , et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2013; 227 (03) 302-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jerabek SA, Carroll KM, Marratt JD, Mayman DJ, Padgett DE. Accuracy of cup positioning and achieving desired hip length and offset following robotic THA. 14th Annual CAOS Meeting. June18-21, 2014; Milan, IT
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Suarez-Ahedo C, Gui C, Martin TJ, Chandrasekaran S, Lodhia P, Domb BG. Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size: a matched-pair controlled study. Hip Int 2017; 27 (02) 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Aggarwal V, Vigdorchik J, Carroll K, Jerabek SA, Mayman DJ. The use of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip. Bone and Amp 2017; 99 (Suppl. 06) 72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar