RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to present an updated analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (robotic THA) and conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (manual THA). METHODS: A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic review was performed using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. Controlled studies comparing primary robotic THA and manual THA utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. We also compared radiographic outcomes, dislocation rates, and revision surgical procedures between groups. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools were used to assess study quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 765 studies identified, 7 articles comparing robotic THA with manual THA met inclusion criteria. A total of 658 patients were assessed, 335 of whom underwent robotic THA. The majority of studies found no significant differences (p > 0.05) in PROMs between the 2 techniques. Two low-quality studies (Level III) found significantly better postoperative PROMs favoring robotic THA at 2 years. When assessing radiographic outcomes, 6 studies showed that robotic THA resulted in more consistent and accurate component placement. No differences in postoperative dislocations, complications, or revision rates were found between groups except in 1 study, which found significantly more dislocations and revisions in the robotic THA cohort. Reported operative times were a mean of 12 to 25 minutes longer when using robotic THA. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature comparing robotic THA and manual THA is scarce and low-quality, with findings limited by methodological flaws in study design. Although evidence exists to support increased accuracy and reproducibility of THA component placement with robotic THA, this has not been shown to reduce postoperative dislocation and revision rates. Based on the available evidence, functional outcomes are comparable between techniques, and robotic THA appears to be associated with longer operative times. To fully evaluate the utility of robotic THA, additional well-designed, prospective controlled studies with continuous long-term monitoring are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
