본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Robotic-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty and Spinopelvic Parameters: A Review

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis, and the popularity of the direct anterior approach has increased due to more rapid recovery and increased stability. Instability, commonly caused by component malposition, remains a significant concern. The dynamic relationship between the pelvis and lumbar spine, deemed spinopelvic motion, is considered an important factor in stability. Various parameters are used in evaluating spinopelvic motion. Understanding spinopelvic motion is critical, and executing a precise plan for positioning the implant can be difficult with manual instrumentation. Robotic and/or navigation systems have been developed in the effort to enhance THA outcomes and for implementing spinopelvic parameters. These systems can be classified into three categories: X-ray/fluoroscopy-based, imageless, and computed tomography (CT)-based. Each system has advantages and limitations. When using CT-based systems, preoperative CT scans are used to assist with preoperative planning and intraoperative execution, providing feedback on implant position and restoration of hip biomechanics within a functional safe zone developed according to each patient’s specific spinopelvic parameters. Several studies have demonstrated the accuracy and reproducibility of robotic systems with regard to implant positioning and leg length discrepancy. Some studies have reported better radiographic and clinical outcomes with use of robotic-assisted THA. However, clinical outcomes comparable to those for manual THA have also been reported. Robotic systems offer advantages in terms of accuracy, precision, and potentially reduced rates of dislocation. Additional research, including conduct of randomized controlled trials, will be required in order to evaluate the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted THA

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis, and the popularity of the direct anterior approach has increased due to more rapid recovery and increased stability. Instability, commonly caused by component malposition, remains a significant concern. The dynamic relationship between the pelvis and lumbar spine, deemed spinopelvic motion, is considered an important factor in stability. Various parameters are used in evaluating spinopelvic motion. Understanding spinopelvic motion is critical, and executing a precise plan for positioning the implant can be difficult with manual instrumentation. Robotic and/or navigation systems have been developed in the effort to enhance THA outcomes and for implementing spinopelvic parameters. These systems can be classified into three categories: X-ray/fluoroscopy-based, imageless, and computed tomography (CT)-based. Each system has advantages and limitations. When using CT-based systems, preoperative CT scans are used to assist with preoperative planning and intraoperative execution, providing feedback on implant position and restoration of hip biomechanics within a functional safe zone developed according to each patient’s specific spinopelvic parameters. Several studies have demonstrated the accuracy and reproducibility of robotic systems with regard to implant positioning and leg length discrepancy. Some studies have reported better radiographic and clinical outcomes with use of robotic-assisted THA. However, clinical outcomes comparable to those for manual THA have also been reported. Robotic systems offer advantages in terms of accuracy, precision, and potentially reduced rates of dislocation. Additional research, including conduct of randomized controlled trials, will be required in order to evaluate the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted THA

참고문헌 (71)

  1. Nilsdotter AK, "Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score(HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 4, pp.10~ (2003)[DOI]
  2. Barrett WP, "Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 28, pp.1634~1638 (2013)[DOI]
  3. Sariali E, "Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty using Hueter anterior approach", J Arthroplasty, 23, pp.266~272 (2008)[DOI]
  4. Siguier T, "Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate : a study of 1037 total hip replacements", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (426), pp.164~173 (2004)[DOI]
  5. Matta JM, "Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 441, pp.115~124 (2005)[DOI]
  6. Maratt JD, "No difference in dislocation seen in anterior vs posterior approach total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 31(9Suppl), pp.127~130 (2016)[DOI]
  7. Lewinnek GE, "Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 60, pp.217~220 (1978)
  8. Kelmer G, "Reasons for revision : primary total hip arthroplasty mechanisms of failure", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 29, pp.78~87 (2021)[DOI]
  9. Brush PL, "Surgeon Estimations of acetabular cup orientation using intraoperative fluoroscopic imagining are unreliable", Arthroplast Today, 20, pp.101109~ (2023)[DOI]
  10. Abdel MP, "What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 474, pp.386~391 (2016)[DOI]
  11. McKnight BM, "Spinopelvic motion and impingement in total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 34(7S), pp.S53~S56 (2019)[DOI]
  12. Heckmann ND, "Spinopelvic biomechanics and total hip arthroplasty : a primer for clinical practice", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 29, pp.e888~e903 (2021)[DOI]
  13. Esposito CI, "Total hip arthroplasty patients with fixed spinopelvic alignment are at higher risk of hip dislocation", J Arthroplasty, 33, pp.1449~1454 (2018)[DOI]
  14. Heckmann N, "Late dislocation following total hip arthroplasty : spinopelvic imbalance as a causative factor", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 100, pp.1845~1853 (2018)[DOI]
  15. Vigdorchik J, "Evaluation of the spine is critical in the workup of recurrent instability after total hip arthroplasty", Bone Joint J, 101-B, pp.817~823 (2019)[DOI]
  16. Wan Z, "Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 467, pp.32~42 (2009)[DOI]
  17. Lembeck B, "Pelvic tilt makes acetabular cup navigation inaccurate", Acta Orthop, 76, pp.517~523 (2005)[DOI]
  18. Lazennec JY, "Acetabular anteversion with CT in supine, simulated standing, and sitting positions in a THA patient population", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 469, pp.1103~1109 (2011)[DOI]
  19. Morton J, "The spinopelvic relationship made simple : what every hip surgeon needs to know to prevent instability in high-risk patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty", Semin Arthroplasty, 29, pp.274~281 (2018)[DOI]
  20. Sharma AK, "Sacral slope change from standing to relaxed-seated grossly overpredicts the presence of a stiff spine", J Arthroplasty, 38, pp.713~718 (2023)[DOI]
  21. Grammatopoulos G, "2018 Frank Stinchfield Award : spinopelvic hypermobility is associated with an inferior outcome after THA : examining the effect of spinal arthrodesis", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 477, pp.310~321 (2019)[DOI]
  22. Innmann MM, "How does spinopelvic mobility and sagittal functional cup orientation affect patient-reported outcome 1 year after THA?-a prospective diagnostic cohort study", J Arthroplasty, 36, pp.2335~2342 (2021)[DOI]
  23. Sculco PK, "Preoperative spinopelvic hypermobility resolves following total hip arthroplasty", Bone Joint J, 103-B, pp.1766~1773 (2021)[DOI]
  24. Vigdorchik JM, "2021 Otto Aufranc Award : a simple Hip-Spine Classification for total hip arthroplasty : validation and a large multicentre series", Bone Joint J, 103-B(7 Supple B), pp.17~24 (2021)[DOI]
  25. Domb BG, "Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA : a matched-pair controlled study", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 472, pp.329~336 (2014)[DOI]
  26. Park YS, "The best method for evaluating anteversion of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty on plain radiographs", J Orthop Surg Res, 13, pp.66~ (2018)[DOI]
  27. "MAKO THA surgical guide" (2015)[URL]
  28. Paul HA, "Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (285), pp.57~66 (1992)[DOI]
  29. Mazoochian F, "Low accuracy of stem implantation in THR using the CASPAR-system : anteversion measurements in 10 hips", Acta Orthop Scand, 75, pp.261~264 (2004)[DOI]
  30. Barrett AR, "Computer-assisted hip resurfacing surgery using the acrobot navigation system", Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 221, pp.773~785 (2007)[DOI]
  31. Kayani B, "The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty", EFORT Open Rev, 4, pp.618~625 (2019)[DOI]
  32. St Mart JP, "Robotics in total hip arthroplasty : a review of the evolution, application and evidence base", EFORT Open Rev, 5, pp.866~873 (2020)[DOI]
  33. Kamath AF, "Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA", J Robot Surg, 16, pp.905~913 (2022)[DOI]
  34. Migliorini F, "Imageless navigation for primary total hip arthroplasty : a meta-analysis study", J Orthop Traumatol, 23, pp.21~ (2022)[DOI]
  35. Jayaram RH, "Total hip arthroplasty imageless navigation does not reduce 90-day adverse events or five-year revisions in a large national cohort", J Arthroplasty, 38, pp.862~867 (2023)[DOI]
  36. Marcovigi A, "Evaluation of native femoral neck version and final stem version variability in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing robotically implanted total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 34, pp.108~115 (2019)[DOI]
  37. Fontalis A, "Functional component positioning in total hip arthroplasty and the role of roboticarm assistance in addressing spinopelvic pathology", Orthop Clin North Am, 54, pp.121~140 (2023)[DOI]
  38. Xu G, "Application of Mako robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip", Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi, 35, pp.1233~1239 (2021)[DOI]
  39. Zhu YS, "The use of Mako robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip", Asian J Surg, 45, pp.1333~1335 (2022)[DOI]
  40. Sato K, "A propensity score-matched comparison between Mako robotic armassisted system and conventional technique in total hip arthroplasty for patients with osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip", Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 143, pp.2755~2761 (2023)[DOI]
  41. Vigdorchik JM, "The use of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip", Arthroplast Today, 6, pp.770~776 (2020)[DOI]
  42. Chai W, "Use of robotic-arm assisted technique in complex primary total hip arthroplasty", Orthop Surg, 12, pp.686~691 (2020)[DOI]
  43. Hayashi S, "Robotic-arm assisted THA can achieve precise cup positioning in developmental dysplasia of the hip : a case control study", Bone Joint Res, 10, pp.629~638 (2021)[DOI]
  44. Domb BG, "Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties : a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance", J Arthroplasty, 30, pp.2208~2218 (2015)[DOI]
  45. Elson L, "Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty", Hip Int, 25, pp.531~536 (2015)[DOI]
  46. Nodzo SR, "Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position : a CT-based study", Bone Joint J, REF069514315, pp.1303~1309 (2018)[DOI]
  47. Illgen RL Nd, "Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty : outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up", Surg Technol Int, 30, pp.365~372 (2017)
  48. Nawabi DH, "Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty : a cadaveric investigation", Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 227, pp.302~309 (2013)[DOI]
  49. Gupta A, "Does robotic-assisted computer navigation affect acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty in the obese patient? A comparison study", J Arthroplasty, 30, pp.2204~2207 (2015)[DOI]
  50. Smith R, "Comparison of precision for manual versus robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty performed by fellows", J Hip Surg, 4, pp.117~123 (2020)[DOI]
  51. Suarez-Ahedo C, "Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size : a matched-pair controlled study", Hip Int, 27, pp.147~152 (2017)[DOI]
  52. Redmond JM, "The learning curve associated with roboticassisted total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 30, pp.50~54 (2015)[DOI]
  53. Heng YY, "Conventional vs robotic arm assisted total hip arthroplasty(THA)surgical time, transfusion rates, length of stay, complications and learning curve", J Arthritis, 7, pp.272~ (2018)[DOI]
  54. Kong X, "A retrospective study comparing a single surgeon’s experience on manual versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty after the learning curve of the latter procedure-a cohort study", Int J Surg, 77, pp.174~180 (2020)[DOI]
  55. Ng N, "Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Bone Joint J, 103-B, pp.1009~1020 (2021)[DOI]
  56. Bukowski BR, "Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty", Surg Technol Int, 29, pp.303~308 (2016)
  57. Singh JA, "Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 17, pp.256~ (2016)[DOI]
  58. Perets I, "Short-term clinical outcomes of robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty : a pair-matched controlled study", Orthopedics, 44, pp.e236~e242 (2021)[DOI]
  59. Longo UG, "Total hip arthroplasty : minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the forgotten joint score 12", Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18, pp.2267~ (2021)[DOI]
  60. Domb BG, "Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty : a propensity score-matched study", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 28, pp.847~856 (2020)[DOI]
  61. Han PF, "Robotics-assisted versus conventional manual approaches for total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies", Int J Med Robot, 15, pp.e1990~ (2019)[DOI]
  62. Clement ND, "Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty", Bone Joint Res, 10, pp.22~30 (2021)[DOI]
  63. Bendich I, "Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques", J Arthroplasty, 37, pp.1124~1129 (2022)[DOI]
  64. Shaw JH, "Comparison of postoperative instability and acetabular cup positioning in robotic-assisted versus traditional total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 37(8S), pp.S881~S889 (2022)[DOI]
  65. King C, "Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty reduces symptomatic postoperative trochanteric bursitis", Orthop Proc, 102-B(S1), pp.146~ (2020)[DOI]
  66. "How much does minimally invasive and robotic hip replacement surgery cost?" (2023)[URL]
  67. Liow MHL, "THINK surgical TSolution-One®(Robodoc)total knee arthroplasty", SICOT J, 3, pp.63~ (2017)[DOI]
  68. Pierce J, "Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty : an economic analysis", J Comp Eff Res, 10, pp.1225~1234 (2021)[DOI]
  69. Barsoum W, "Advantages of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty : a 90-day episodeof-care clinical utility and cost analysis", J Comp Eff Res, 12, pp.e220208~ (2023)[DOI]
  70. Maldonado DR, "Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty is more cost-effective than manual total hip arthroplasty : a Markov model analysis", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 29, pp.e168~e177 (2021)[DOI]
  71. Abbruzzese K, "Physical and mental demand during total hip arthroplasty", Orthop Clin North Am, 53, pp.413~419 (2022)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)