The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background:

Robotic-arm assisted surgery aims to reduce manual errors and improve the accuracy of implant positioning and orientation during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to assess the surgical team’s learning curve for robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA.

Methods:

This prospective cohort study included 100 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing primary total THA performed by a single surgeon. This included 50 patients receiving conventional manual THA and 50 patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA. Independent observers recorded surrogate markers of the learning curve including operative times, confidence levels amongst the surgical team using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) questionnaire, accuracy in restoring native hip biomechanics, acetabular cup positioning, leg-length discrepancy, and complications within 90 days of surgery.

Results:

Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis revealed robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA was associated with a learning curve of 12 cases for achieving operative times (p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels (p < 0.001) comparable to conventional manual THA. There was no learning curve of robotic-arm assisted THA for accuracy of achieving the planned horizontal (p = 0.83) and vertical (p = 0.71) centres of rotation, combined offset (p = 0.67), cup inclination (p = 0.68), cup anteversion (p = 0.72), and correction of leg-length discrepancy (p = 0.61). There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two treatment groups.

Conclusions:

Integration of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during THA was associated with a learning curve of 12 cases for operative times and surgical team confidence levels but there was no learning curve effect for accuracy in restoring native hip biomechanics or achieving planned acetabular cup positioning and orientation.

Keywords

Biomechanics cup position learning curve operating time robotics total hip replacement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Soderman

Malchau

Herberts

Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: general health evaluation in relation to definition of failure in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 354–359.

Dastane

Dorr

Tarwala

, et al. Hip offset in total hip arthroplasty: quantitative measurement with navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 429–436.

García-Rey

García-Cimbrelo

Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 484–490.

Holleyman

Gikas

Tyler

, et al. The effect of hip joint centre of rotation displacement on patient functional outcome following primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94-B(Suppl. XXXVI): 120.

Mahmood

Mukka

Crnalic

, et al. Association between changes in global femoral offset after total hip arthroplasty and function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength. A prospective cohort study of 222 patients. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 36–41.

Callanan

Jarrett

Bragdon

, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 :319.

Hassan

Johnston

Dust

, et al. Accuracy of intraoperative assessment of acetabular prosthesis placement. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 80–84.

Jolles

Zangger

Leyvraz

PF.

Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 282.

Barrack

Krempec

Clohisy

, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 1760.

10.

Kayani

Konan

Thakrar

, et al. Assuring the long-term total joint arthroplasty: a triad of variables. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. A): 11–18.

11.

Kanawade

Dorr

Banks

, et al. Precision of robotic guided instrumentation for acetabular component positioning. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 392–397.

12.

Nawabi

Conditt

Ranawat

, et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2013; 227: 302–309.

13.

Domb

El Bitar

Sadik

, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 329.

14.

Illgen

Nd, Bukowski

Abiola

, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up. Surg Technol Int 2017; 30: 365–372.

15.

de Steiger

Lorimer

Solomon

What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3860–3866.

16.

Peltola

Malmivaara

Paavola

Hip prosthesis introduction and early revision risk. A nationwide population-based study covering 39,125 operations. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 25–31.

17.

Thorey

Klages

Lerch

, et al. Cup positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device: is there a learning curve? Orthopedics 2009; 32(Suppl.): 14–17.

18.

Redmond

Gupta

Hammarstedt

, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 50–54.

19.

Kamara

Robinson

Bas

, et al. Adoption of robotic vs fluoroscopic guidance in total hip arthroplasty: is acetabular positioning improved in the learning curve? J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 125–130.

20.

Kayani

Konan

Pietrzak

JRT

, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B: 1033–1042.

21.

Biau

Meziane

Bhumbra

, et al. Monitoring the quality of total hip replacement in a tertiary care department using a cumulative summation statistical method (CUSUM). J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 1183–1188.

22.

Lee

Biau

Yoon

, et al. Learning curve of acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty using a cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 586–589.

23.

Marteau

Bekker

The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992; 31: 301–306.

24.

Kayani

Konan

Huq

, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27: 1132–1141.

25.

Meermans

Doorn

Kats

JJ.

Restoration of the centre of rotation in primary total hip arthroplasty: the influence of acetabular floor depth and reaming technique. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 1597–1603.

26.

Murray

DW.

The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993; 75: 228–232.

27.

Flecher

Ollivier

Argenson

JN.

Lower limb length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102(Suppl.): S9–S20.

28.

Woolson

Hartford

Sayer

Results of a method of leg-length equalization for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 1999; 1421: 59–64.

29.

Steinberg

Shasha

Menahem

, et al. Preoperative planning of total hip replacement using the TraumaCad system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130: 1429–1432.

30.

Westacott

McArthur

King

, et al. Assessment of cup orientation in hip resurfacing: a comparison of TraumaCad and computed tomography. J Orthop Surg Res 2013; 8: 8.

31.

Bozic

Kurtz

Lau

, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 128.

32.

Bonnin

Archbold

Basiglini

, et al. Do we medialise the hip centre of rotation in total hip arthroplasty? Influence of acetabular offset and surgical technique. Hip Int 2012; 22: 371–378.