Cargando…

Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study

AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of acetabular cup positioning in the obese patients when using robotic-assisted technology during total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent primary (THA) with a body mass index...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Shuai, Liu, Yubo, Yang, Minzhi, Ma, Mingyang, Cao, Zheng, Kong, Xiangpeng, Chai, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9338672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35907875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03263-6
_version_ 1784760022826221568
author Zhang, Shuai
Liu, Yubo
Yang, Minzhi
Ma, Mingyang
Cao, Zheng
Kong, Xiangpeng
Chai, Wei
author_facet Zhang, Shuai
Liu, Yubo
Yang, Minzhi
Ma, Mingyang
Cao, Zheng
Kong, Xiangpeng
Chai, Wei
author_sort Zhang, Shuai
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of acetabular cup positioning in the obese patients when using robotic-assisted technology during total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent primary (THA) with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 28 kg/m(2) and ≥ 1 year of follow-up between January 2018 and December 2019. Their demographics, diagnosis, acetabular cup positioning, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at the final follow-up were recorded for analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in height, weight, BMI, ASA score, or preoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS). Also, there was no difference in inclination angle between the two groups (R-THA: 41.29° ± 3.04°; manual THA (M-THA): 40.47° ± 5.46°; P = 0.312). However, the mean anteversion angle was greater in the R-THA group (20.71° ± 1.98° vs. 19.08° ± 4.04°; P < 0.001). Compared to M-THA, R-THA more frequently achieved an acetabular cup angle within 5° of the target (anteversion, 98.1% vs. 78.1% P = 0.001; inclination, 88.5% vs. 53.1%, P < 0.001). The R-THA group was more advantageous in restoring the hip center of rotation (COR) and leg length difference (LLD). There was no statistical difference in postoperative HHS (P = 0.404) or FJS (P = 0.497) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to manual technique, robotic-assisted technique provided more precise acetabular cup positioning and better leg length restoration for obese patients. The robotic-assisted technique was more advantageous in recovering the center of rotation position and achieved a higher proportion of the acetabular cup placed in the target safety zone. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical outcomes of surgeries in obese patients using robotic-assisted technology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9338672
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93386722022-07-31 Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study Zhang, Shuai Liu, Yubo Yang, Minzhi Ma, Mingyang Cao, Zheng Kong, Xiangpeng Chai, Wei J Orthop Surg Res Research Article AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of acetabular cup positioning in the obese patients when using robotic-assisted technology during total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent primary (THA) with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 28 kg/m(2) and ≥ 1 year of follow-up between January 2018 and December 2019. Their demographics, diagnosis, acetabular cup positioning, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at the final follow-up were recorded for analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in height, weight, BMI, ASA score, or preoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS). Also, there was no difference in inclination angle between the two groups (R-THA: 41.29° ± 3.04°; manual THA (M-THA): 40.47° ± 5.46°; P = 0.312). However, the mean anteversion angle was greater in the R-THA group (20.71° ± 1.98° vs. 19.08° ± 4.04°; P < 0.001). Compared to M-THA, R-THA more frequently achieved an acetabular cup angle within 5° of the target (anteversion, 98.1% vs. 78.1% P = 0.001; inclination, 88.5% vs. 53.1%, P < 0.001). The R-THA group was more advantageous in restoring the hip center of rotation (COR) and leg length difference (LLD). There was no statistical difference in postoperative HHS (P = 0.404) or FJS (P = 0.497) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to manual technique, robotic-assisted technique provided more precise acetabular cup positioning and better leg length restoration for obese patients. The robotic-assisted technique was more advantageous in recovering the center of rotation position and achieved a higher proportion of the acetabular cup placed in the target safety zone. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical outcomes of surgeries in obese patients using robotic-assisted technology. BioMed Central 2022-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9338672/ /pubmed/35907875 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03263-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhang, Shuai
Liu, Yubo
Yang, Minzhi
Ma, Mingyang
Cao, Zheng
Kong, Xiangpeng
Chai, Wei
Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title_full Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title_fullStr Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title_full_unstemmed Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title_short Robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
title_sort robotic-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty in obese patients: a retrospective case–control study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9338672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35907875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03263-6
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangshuai roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT liuyubo roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT yangminzhi roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT mamingyang roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT caozheng roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT kongxiangpeng roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy
AT chaiwei roboticassistedversusmanualtotalhiparthroplastyinobesepatientsaretrospectivecasecontrolstudy