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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |