Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2024
Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) using computer-assisted navigation (N-THA) and robot-assisted surgery (RA-THA) has been increasingly adopted to improve implant positioning and offset/leg-length restoration. Whether clinically meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional THA (C-THA) are achieved with intraoperative technology has not been established. This systematic review aimed to assess whether published relative PROM improvements with technology use in THA achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).
Methods:
PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed for studies comparing PROMs for primary N-THA or RA-THA with C-THA as the control group. Relative improvement differences between groups were compared to established MCID values. Reported clinical and radiographic differences were assessed. Review of N-THA and RA-THA literature yielded 6 (n= 2580) and 10 (n= 2786) studies, respectively, for analyses.
Results:
Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROM scores were reported in 2/6 (33.3%) studies comparing N-THA with C-THA, though only 1 (16.7%) reported clinically significant relative improvements. Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROMs were reported in 6/10 (60.0%) studies comparing RA-THA and C-THA, though none reported clinically significant relative improvements. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-THA and RA-THA were reported in 83.3% and 70.0% of studies, respectively. Only 1 study reported a significant improvement in revision rates with RA-THA as compared to C-THA.
Conclusions:
Reported PROM scores in studies comparing N-THA or RA-THA to C-THA often do not achieve clinically significant relative improvements. Future studies reporting PROMs should be interpreted in the context of validated MCID values to accurately establish the clinical impact of intraoperative technology.
HsiuePPChenCJVillalpandoC, et al. Trends and patient factors associated with technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2014. Arthroplast Today2020; 6: 112–117.e1.
2.
KorberSAntoniosJKSivasundaramL, et al. Utilization of technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2018. Arthroplast Today2021; 12: 36–44.
3.
WasterlainASBuzaJA3rdThakkarSC, et al. Navigation and robotics in total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Rev2017; 5: e2.
4.
DorrLDMalikAWanZ, et al. Precision and bias of imageless computer navigation and surgeon estimates for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 465: 92–99.
5.
DavisETSchubertMWegnerM, et al. A new method of registration in navigated hip arthroplasty without the need to register the anterior pelvic plane. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 55–60.
6.
KalteisTHandelMBäthisH, et al. Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: is it as accurate as CT-based navigation?J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88: 163–167.
7.
WeberMWoernerMSpringorumR, et al. Fluoroscopy and imageless navigation enable an equivalent reconstruction of leg length and global and femoral offset in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 3150–3158.
8.
EllapparadjaPMahajanVDeakinAH, et al. Reproduction of hip offset and leg length in navigated total hip arthroplasty: how accurate are we?J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1002–1007.
9.
DombBGEl BitarYFSadikAY, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 329–336.
10.
ElsonLDounchisJIllgenR, et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2015; 25: 531–536.
11.
NakamuraNSuganoNNishiiT, et al. A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 1072–1081.
12.
HananouchiTSuganoNNishiiT, et al. Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. J Orthop Res2007; 25: 1062–1069.
13.
KirchnerGJLieberAMHaislupB, et al. The cost of robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: comparing safety and hospital charges to conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2021; 29: 609–615.
14.
SuganoN.Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg2013; 5: 1–9.
15.
RedmondJMGuptaAHammarstedtJE, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 50–54.
16.
ThoreyFKlagesPLerchM, et al. Cup positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device: is there a learning curve?Orthopedics2009; 32(Suppl.): 14–17.
17.
RenkawitzTWeberMSpringorumHR, et al. Impingement-free range of movement, acetabular component cover and early clinical results comparing “femur-first” navigation and “conventional” minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J2015; 97-B: 890–898.
18.
HonlMDierkOGauckC, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85: 1470–1478.
19.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH.Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials1989; 10: 407–415.
20.
TangheKKBeieneZAMcLawhornAS, et al. Metrics of clinically important changes in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty2023; 38: 383–388.
21.
ArshiASekimuraTKelleyBV, et al. Navigated and robot-assisted technology in total knee arthroplasty: do outcome differences achieve minimal clinically important difference?J Arthroplasty2022; 37: 1562–1569.
22.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
23.
SinghJASchleckCHarmsenS, et al. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2016; 17: 256.
24.
YeoMGHGohGSChenJY, et al. Are Oxford Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index useful predictors of clinical meaningful improvement and satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty?J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 2458–2464.
25.
JudgeACooperCWilliamsS, et al. Patient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2010; 62: 480–488.
26.
LymanSLeeYYMcLawhornAS, et al. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement?Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 2432–2441.
27.
KuoACGioriNJBoweTR, et al. Comparing methods to determine the minimal clinically important differences in patient-reported outcome measures for veterans undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty in veterans health administration hospitals. JAMA Surg2020; 155: 404–411.
28.
FarrowLRedmoreJTalukdarP, et al. Prioritisation of patients awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty: lower pre-operative EQ-5D is associated with greater improvement in quality of life and joint function. Musculoskeletal Care2022; 20: 892–898.
29.
BerlinerJLBrodkeDJChanV, et al. John Charnley Award: preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 321–329.
30.
SinghJASchleckCHarmsenWS, et al. Validation of the Mayo Hip Score: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2016; 17: 39.
31.
RobinsonPGMacDonaldDJMacphersonGJ, et al. Changes and thresholds in the Forgotten Joint Score after total hip arthroplasty: minimal clinically important difference, minimal important and detectable changes, and patient-acceptable symptom state. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 1759–1765.
32.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI.Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
33.
OkamotoMKawasakiMOkuraT, et al. Comparison of accuracy of cup position using portable navigation versus alignment guide in total hip arthroplasty in supine position. Hip Int2021; 31: 492–499.
34.
ShigemuraTBabaYMurataY, et al. Is a portable accelerometer-based navigation system useful in total hip arthroplasty?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2021; 107: 102742.
35.
EllapparadjaPMahajanVAtiyaS, et al. Leg length discrepancy in computer navigated total hip arthroplasty - how accurate are we?Hip Int2016; 26: 438–443.
36.
LassRKubistaBOlischarB, et al. Total hip arthroplasty using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 786–791.
37.
ParratteSOllivierMLunebourgA, et al. No benefit after THA performed with computer-assisted cup placement: 10-year results of a randomized controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 2085–2093.
38.
SinghVRealyvasquezJSimcoxT, et al. Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes?J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 2801–2807.
39.
JacofskyDJAllenM.Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2353–2363.
40.
KunzeKNBovonratwetPPolceEM, et al. Comparison of surgical time, short-term adverse events, and implant placement accuracy between manual, robotic-assisted, and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2022; 6: e21.00200.
41.
ChaiWXuCGuoRW, et al. Does robotic-assisted computer navigation improve acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe III/IV hip dysplasia? A propensity score case-match analysis. Int Orthop2022; 46: 769–777.
42.
ClementNDGastonPHamiltonDF, et al. A cost-utility analysis of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty: using robotic data from the private sector and manual data from the National Health Service. Adv Orthop2022; 2022: 5962260.
43.
CoulombRCascalesVHaignereV, et al. Does acetabular robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty with femoral navigation improve clinical outcomes at 1-year post-operative? A case-matched propensity score study comparing 98 robotic-assisted versus 98 manual implantation hip arthroplasties. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2023; 109: 103477.
44.
FoisseyCBataillerCCoulombR, et al. Image-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach allows a better orientation of the acetabular cup and a better restitution of the centre of rotation than a conventional procedure. Int Orthop2023; 47: 691–699.
45.
LimSJKoKRParkCW, et al. Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with a short femoral stem: a prospective randomized short-term outcome study. Comput Aided Surg2015; 20: 41–46.
46.
ZhangSLiuYYangM, et al. Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res2022; 17: 368.
47.
HadleyCJGrossmanELMontMA, et al. Robotic-assisted versus manually implanted total hip arthroplasty: a clinical and radiographic comparison. Surg Technol Int2020; 37: 371–376.
48.
BukowskiBRAndersonPKhlopasA, et al. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int2016; 29: 303–308.
49.
SnijdersTvan GaalenSMde GastA.Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot2017; 13: e1843.
50.
MiglioriniFCuozzoFOlivaF, et al. Imageless navigation for primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis study. J Orthop Traumatol2022; 23: 21.
51.
NakamuraNSuganoNSakaiT, et al. Does robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless THA result in improved outcomes scores or survivorship compared with hand rasping? Results of a randomized trial at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 2169–2173.
52.
BoylanMSuchmanKVigdorchikJ, et al. Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1019–1023.
53.
McLawhornASBullerLT.Bundled payments in total joint replacement: keeping our care affordable and high in quality. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2017; 10: 370–377.
54.
BeringerDCPatelJJBozicKJ.An overview of economic issues in computer-assisted total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 463: 26–30.
