ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) and conventional THA.Methods:Patient data of unilateral primary THA with the same prosthesis by the same operator due to osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and other diseases in Peking University Third Hospital from September 2019 to February 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into robot-assisted THA group and conventional THA group according to surgical methods. The preoperative general data, operation time, intraoperative complications and other intraoperative data were collected. Anteroposterior X-ray of pelvis and cross-table X-ray of hip were taken. Main outcome measures consisted of total blood loss, blood transfusion rate, hospitalization stay, postoperative complications, and the inclination and anteversion angle of the acetabular cup, while the dislocation rate outside the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zone was also analyzed. Other outcomes measures included visual analogue scale, Harris score, quality of life score (QOL) and satisfaction score.Results:There was no significant difference in gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), operation side, preoperative blood volume and Harris score between the two groups ( P>0.05); Loosening of positioning screws occurred in 2 patients due to osteoporosis in robot-assisted THA group, so conventional THA was performed. Therefore, 84 cases in robot-assisted THA group and 87 cases in conventional THA group were enrolled in this study at last. There was no significant difference in follow-up time between conventional THA group and robot-assisted THA group (19.7±6.8 months vs. 18.6±5.4 months, t=1.16, P=0.249); The operation time of robot-assisted THA group was longer than that of conventional THA group (106.99±31.91 min vs. 73.79±29.48 min, t=7.07, P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in hospitalization stay between conventional THA group and robot-assisted THA group (6.40±2.40 d vs. 6.49±1.95 d, t=0.26, P=0.796). There was also no significant difference in total blood loss and blood transfusion rate between the two groups ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in inclination angle (38.79°±6.93° vs. 39.41°±3.01°, t=0.58, P=0.449) and anteversion angle (14.81°±6.49° vs. 13.33°±4.32°, t=3.06, P=0.082) between conventional THA group and robot-assisted THA group, while the percentage in Lewinnek safe zone (96.4% vs. 73.6%, χ 2=15.60, P<0.001) and Callanan safe zone (92.9% vs. 65.5%, χ 2=17.61, P<0.001) was significantly higher in conventional THA than that of robot-assisted THA. There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS, Harris score and QOL score between the two groups ( P>0.05), but the excellent and good rate of Harris score of conventional THA group was lower than that of robot-assisted THA group (83.91% vs. 95.24%, χ 2=5.83, P=0.016); The overall satisfaction of patients in robot-assisted THA group was better than that in conventional THA group ( Z=-3.47, P=0.001), and 95.2% (80/84) of patients in robot-assisted THA group were very satisfied, which was higher than that in conventional THA group (75.86%, 66/87). The satisfaction of patients in robot-assisted THA group on pain relief ( Z=-2.44, P=0.015) and improvement of leisure activity ( Z=-2.12, P=0.034) was better than that in conventional THA group, but there was no significant difference in the satisfaction of ability of doing house work between the two groups ( Z=-0.49, P=0.626). Conclusion:Compared with conventional THA, robot-assisted THA has longer operation time but better short-term clinical outcomes and higher patient satisfaction after surgery.