EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 6 (2020) SICOT-J, 6 (2020) 45 Full HTML

Table 1

Evaluation of cup position in comparative studies of the literature between with and without robotic-assisted system.

Date Type of study Country Number of procedures
 Robot type Population gender Surgical approach
 Age (y) Number of complications
 FU Outcomes studied
No Robotic Robotic Non Robotic Robotic Non Robotic Robotic Conventional Robotic Non Robotic Robotic
Lim et al [46] 2015 RCT Korea 25 24 ROBODOC M 13 F 12 M 11 F 13 NR NR 45.6 (21–65) 51.2 (19–67) 2 (intraPPF) 0 Functional scores, complications, stem alignment, LLD, operation time
Siebel and Kafer [75] 2005 Retrospective Germany 35 36 CASPAR M 19 F 16 M 21 F 15 Lateral Lateral 60.6 ± 7.0 58.9 ± 8.9 3 (1 dislocation + 2 intraPPF) 4 (2 dislocation + 1 neuro +1 infection) 18 Functional scores, complications, operation time
Nakamura et al [43, 82] 2010 RCT Japan 71 75 ROBODOC M 10 F 51 M 13 F 56 Post. Post. 58 ± 9 57 ± 10 10 (1 dislocation + 4 thigh pain + 5 intraPPF 7 (4 dislocation + 3 thigh pain) min > 4 Y Complications, LLD, operation time
Domb et al [83] 2014 Retrospective matched-pair controlled USA 62 69 MAKO M 19 F 31 M 19 F 31 Post. Ant. (fDAA) 56.7 ± 8.1 56.8 ± 7.9 0 1 (intracup malposition) – Complications, cup angle, safe zone of cup, operation time
El Bitar et al. ** [84] 2015 Retrospective USA 88* (2 groups) 67 MAKO M 12 M 23 M 29 F 38 fDDA Post. Posterior 67 58 ± 12.3 55.3±9.3 60.2 ± 9.6 NR NR – Leg length discrepancy
F 17 F 36 29 59
Tsai et al. [24] 2016 Retrospective USA 14 12 MAKO M 7 F 7 M 2 F 10 Post. Posterior 58.7 ± 7.5 61.4 ± 8.9 0 0 NR Cup angle, safe zone of cup, stem alignment
Bargar et al. [41] 2018 RCT USA 22 45 ROBODOC M 12 F 10 35 M 10 F Post. Posterior 59.8 ± 9.4 59.1 ± 8.2 0 0 14 Y Functional scores
Schulz et al. [44] 2007 Retrospective Germany – 128 ROBODOC – NR – Lateral – 56 (19–75) – 17 intra op (9 technical, 8 other) 9 postop 3.8 Y Complication, Clinical outcomes
Suarez-Ahedo et al. [57] 2017 Control study USA 57 57 MAKO M 20 F 37 M 20 F 37 Ant. & Post. NR 56.9 (38.8–72.3) 56.9 (40.6–73.4) NR NR Bone preservation
Domb et al. ** [38] 2015 Retrospective USA 1752* (multi groups) 228 MAKO – – DAA and post. +/− Xray+/− Nav Ant. (DAA) & Post. 64.7 ± 11.9 58.6 ± 10.8 NR NR – Cup angle, safe zone of cup, leg length discrepancy
Bargar et al. [45] 1998 Retrospective Germany 62 65 ROBODOC NR NR Post. Post. NR NR 9 (4 dislocation +3 intraPPF, +2 other) 9 (4 dislocation + 2 neuro + 1 loosening +2 other) 1 at 2 Y Complication
Hananouchi et al. [85] 2007 Retrospective Japan 27 31 ROBODOC NR NR NR NR 57.4 ± 7.1 56.7 ± 9.2 NR NR 24 M Functional score, complications, stem alignment
Honl et al. [42] 2003 Randomized controlled Germany 80 61 ROBODOC M 24 F 56 M 24 F 37 Anterolat. Anterolat 70.7 ± 8.3 71.5 ± 7.1 6 (3 dislocation + 1 neuro + 2 infection) 15 (11 dislocation + 4 neuro + 1 HOssif.) 2 Y Functional score, complications, stem alignment, operation time
Kamara et al. ** [51] 2017 Retrospective USA 296* (2 groups) 98 MAKO M 93 M 43 M 45 F 53 M.Post DAA Post. NR NR 7a 5b 2c NR Complications, cup angle, operation time,
F 105 F 55
 Nishihara et al. [40] 2006 Retrospective Japan 78 78 ORTHODOC M 14 F 64 M 14 F 64 Post. Post. 58 (29–77) 58 (27–81) 5 (PPF) 0 2.3 Y Functional score, complications, stem alignment, operation time
Heng et al. [73] 2018 Retrospective Australia 45 45 MAKO M 32 F 13 M 25 F 20 Post. Post. 62.8 ± 12.3 64.5 ± 9.9 3 (acetabular fractures) 2 (1 conversion +1 wound infection) – Intraoperative complication, operation time bleeding LOS
Kanawabe et al. [54] 2015 Prospective USA – 43 (38) MAKO – M19 F 24 – Post. – 63 (48–79) – 0 (5 technic failures) – Intraoperative complication, cup position accuracy
Kayani et al. [72] 2019 Prospective UK 50 25 MAKO M 26 F 24 M 13 F 12 Post. Post. 69.4 ± 5.2 67.5 ± 5.8 0 0 6 W cup angle accuracy, early complication (6weeks)
Kong et al. [52] 2020 Retrospective China 100 86 MAKO M 40 F 60 M 36 F 50 Post. Post. 51.9 ± 12.6 51.9 ± 10.8 NR NR – Learning curve, cup angle
Banchetti et al. [86] 2018 Retrospective Italy 51/100*** 56/120*** MAKO M 26 F 25 M 31 F 35 Post. Post. 69.8 ± 10.2 66.2 ± 11.1 NR NR 2 Y Complications, PROMS, clinical outcomes
Perets et al[77] 2017 Retrospective USA – 162 MAKO – M 73 F 89 – Ant. & Post. – 61.2 ± 8.9 – 12 (6 intraPPF + 1 infection+ 1 neuro+4 other) >2 Y PROMS, clinical outcomes
Illgen et al. ** [49] 2017 Retrospective USA 200* (2 groups) 100 MAKO M 42 M 50 M 42 F 58 Post. Post. 65 ± 14 60 ± 12 62 ± 11 Dislocation Dislocation: 0 2 Y Cup position, operative time, blood loss, complication
F 58 F 50 Early THA Late THA 5 3
*

Sum of all procedures without the use of the robot in studies with more than two groups of comparison including 2 techniques assistance or approach of non-robotic THA.

**

Relating studies with multi-subgroups comparing different THA procedures without robot with a group with a robotic assistance.

***

Respondent’s patient at the follow-up.

a

3 intraoperative (femoral fractures) + 1 early dislocation + 4 revisions (1 femoral for the failure of osseointegration, 1 LLD, 1 wound infection, 1 delayed infection at 1 Y;

b

no intraoperative, 2 anterior recurrent dislocation, 3 revisions (1 psoas tenotomy, 1 metallosis with CoC, 1 ALVAL with modular neck),

c

no intraoperative complication, 1 early recurrent dislocation with revision, 1 revision for subsidence

Abbreviations. NR: non reported, intraPPF: intraoperative periprosthetic fracture, neuro: neurologic complication as palsy or lesion, post.: posterior approach, ant.: anterior approach, anterolat, HOssif.: Heterotopic ossification. Antero lateral approach DAA: Direct Anterior Approach, fDAA: DAA assisted by fluoroscopy, X-ray: surgery assisted by intraoperative fluoroscopy, Nav: surgery assisted by navigation, W: week, M: month, Y: year, –: No way in the goal of the study.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.