Robotics‐assisted versus conventional manual approaches for total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared robotics‐assisted (RA) and conventional manual (CM) approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but their results are controversial. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy of the RA and CM approaches for THA and published between August 1998 and August 2018. The obtained data were analyzed using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the meta‐analysis, which revealed that the RA group had less intraoperative complications, better cup angle, and more cases of cup placement in the safe zone than the CM group. However, the operation time required for the CM group was less than that required for the RA group. Moreover, postoperative complications (eg, dislocation and revision surgery) were less frequent in the CM group than in the RA group. However, the two groups had similar functional scores, total number of complications, and rate of occurrence of limb length discrepancy. CONCLUSION: Compared with the CM approach, the RA approach yields better radiological outcomes and fewer intraoperative complications in THA, but similar functional scores.