Einzeltreffer — DigiBib

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare one-year patient reported outcome measures between a novel fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted (FL-RTHA) system and an existing computerised tomography-based robotic assisted (CT-RTHA) system.

Methods: A review of 85 consecutive FL-RTHA and 125 consecutive CT-RTHA was conducted. Outcomes included one-year post-operative Veterans RAND-12 (VR-12) Physical (PCS)/Mental (MCS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome (HOOS) Pain/Physical Function (PS)/Joint replacement, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity scores.

Results: The FL-RTHA cohort had lower pre-operative VR-12 PCS, HOOS Pain, HOOS-PS, HOOS-JR, and UCLA Activity scores compared with patients in the CT-RTHA cohort. The FL-RTHA cohort reported greater improvements in HOOS-PS scores (-41.54 vs. -36.55; p = 0.028) than the CT-RTHA cohort. Both cohorts experienced similar rates of major post-operative complications, and had similar radiographic outcomes.

Conclusions: Use of the fluoroscopy-based robotic system resulted in greater improvements in HOOS-PS in one-year relative to the CT-based robotic technique.

Titel:	Use of a fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system resulted in greater improvements in hip-specific outcome measures at one-year compared to a CT-based robotic-assisted system.
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person:	Ong, CB ; Buchan, GBJ ; Hecht CJ 2nd ; Liu, D ; Petterwood, J ; Kamath, AF
Link:	Full Text Finder (Volltext)
Zeitschrift:	The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS, Jg. 20 (2024-06-01), Heft 3, S. e2650
Veröffentlichung:	2006- : West Sussex, England : Wiley ; <i>Original Publication</i>: Ilkley, UK : Robotic Publications, c2004-, 2024
Medientyp:	academicJournal
ISSN:	1478-596X (electronic)
DOI:	10.1002/rcs.2650
Schlagwort:	Humans Fluoroscopy Female Male Middle Aged Aged Treatment Outcome Retrospective Studies Hip Joint surgery Hip Joint diagnostic imaging Robotic Surgical Procedures methods Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip methods Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Sonstiges:	Nachgewiesen in: MEDLINE Sprachen: English Publication Type: Journal Article; Comparative Study Language: English [Int J Med Robot] 2024 Jun; Vol. 20 (3), pp. e2650. MeSH Terms: Robotic Surgical Procedures* / methods ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip* / methods ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed* ; Humans ; Fluoroscopy ; Female ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Treatment Outcome ; Retrospective Studies ; Hip Joint / surgery ; Hip Joint / diagnostic imaging References: Schmitz PP, van Susante JLC, Hol A, Brokelman R, van Loon CJM. No decline in high patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty at long‐term follow‐up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(1):91‐95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590‐018‐2243‐6. ; Okafor L, Chen AF. Patient satisfaction and total hip arthroplasty: a review. Arthroplasty. 2019;1(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836‐019‐0007‐3. ; Palazzo C, Jourdan C, Descamps S, et al. Determinants of satisfaction 1 year after total hip arthroplasty: the role of expectations fulfilment. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2014;15:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471‐2474‐15‐53. ; Anakwe RE, Jenkins PJ, Moran M. Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):209‐213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.03.013. ; Rolfson O, Kärrholm J, Dahlberg LE, Garellick G. Patient‐reported outcomes in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: results of a nationwide prospective observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(7):867‐875. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301‐620X.93B7.25737. ; Redmond JM, Gupta A, Hammarstedt JE, Petrakos A, Stake CE, Domb BG. Accuracy of component placement in robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2016;39(3):193‐199. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447‐20160404‐06. ; Barsoum W, Gregory D, Needham K, et al. Advantages of robotic arm‐assisted total hip arthroplasty: a 90‐day episode‐of‐care clinical utility and cost analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2023;12(5):e220208. https://doi.org/10.57264/cer‐2022‐0208. ; Buchan GBJ, Hecht CJ2nd, Liu D, Mokete L, Kendoff D, Kamath AF. Improved accuracy of a novel fluoroscopy‐based robotically assisted THA system compared to manual THA. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(5):2073‐2079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐023‐01623‐w. ; Kamath AF, Durbhakula SM, Pickering T, et al. Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT‐free robotic THA system in matched‐pair analysis with manual THA. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(4):905‐913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐021‐01315‐3. ; Bendich I, Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6):1124‐1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.085. ; Buchan GBJ, Hecht CJ, Sculco PK, Chen JB, Kamath AF. Improved short‐term outcomes for a novel, fluoroscopy‐based robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty system compared to manual technique with fluoroscopic assistance. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;1(8):501‐508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402‐023‐05061‐z. ; Illgen RL, Bukowski BR, Abiola R, et al. Robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two‐year follow‐up. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:365‐372. ; Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen RL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2016;29:303‐308. ; Domb BG, Chen JW, Lall AC, Maldonado DR. 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. 2020;28(20):847‐856. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos‐d‐19‐00328. ; Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Simcox T, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Davidovitch RI. Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes? J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(8):2801‐2807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.074. ; Fontalis A, Kayani B, Haddad IC, Donovan C, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. Patient‐reported outcome measures in conventional total hip arthroplasty versus robotic‐arm assisted arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study with minimum 3 Years’ follow‐up. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7 suppl 2):S324‐S329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.04.045. ; Fontalis A, Kayani B, Thompson JW, Plastow R, Haddad FS. Robotic total hip arthroplasty: past, present and future. Orthop Traumatol. 2022;36(1):6‐13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2021.11.002. ; Ng N, Gaston P, Simpson PM, Macpherson GJ, Patton JT, Clement ND. Robotic arm‐assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Bone Joint Lett J. 2021;103‐B(6):1009‐1020. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301‐620x.103b6.bjj‐2020‐1856.r1. ; Karunaratne S, Duan M, Pappas E, et al. The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient‐reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Orthop. 2019;43(6):1283‐1295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264‐018‐4140‐3. ; Perets I, Walsh JP, Mu BH, et al. Short‐term clinical outcomes of robotic‐arm assisted total hip arthroplasty: a pair‐matched controlled study. Orthopedics. 2021;44(2):e236‐e242. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447‐20201119‐10. ; Stryker MedEd [Internet]. MakoTM total hip direct anterior approach: surgical reference guide. https://www.strykermeded.com/media/2040/mako‐tha‐direct‐anterior‐approach‐surgical‐technique.pdf. ; Ong CB, Buchan GBJ, Hecht IICJ, et al. Robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty utilizing a fluoroscopy‐guided system resulted in improved intra‐operative efficiency relative to a computerized tomography‐based platform. J Robotic Surg. 2023:1‐7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐023‐01723‐7. ; Iqbal S, Rogers W, Selim A, et al. The veterans RAND 12 item health survey (VR‐12): what it IS and HOW it IS used. https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/01/veterans_rand_12_item_health_survey_vr‐12_2007.pdf. ; Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2003;4(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471‐2474‐4‐10. ; Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(8):890‐895. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883‐5403(98)90195‐4. ; Lyman S. HOOS LS, JR., KOOS JR Outcomes surveys. Hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (HOOS, JR.). https://www.hss.edu/hoos‐jr‐koos‐jr‐outcomes‐surveys.asp. ; Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip‐replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217‐220. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623‐197860020‐00014. ; Zimmer Biomet TV [Internet]. ROSA® hip system V1.0 surgical technique (extended version). [cited 2023 Aug 11]. https://zimmerbiomet.tv/videos/2858?version=3515. ; Hung M, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Saltzman CL. Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World J Orthoped. 2018;9(3):41‐49. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.41. ; Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(12):2432‐2441. https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000000456. ; Buchan GBJ, Ong CB, Hecht Ii CJ, DeCook CA, Spencer‐Gardner LS, Kamath AF. Use of a fluoroscopy‐based robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty system produced greater improvements in patient‐reported outcomes at one year compared to manual, fluoroscopic‐assisted technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(4):1843‐1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402‐024‐05230‐8. ; OME Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedics. Implementing a scientifically valid, cost‐effective, and scalable data collection system at point of care: the Cleveland clinic OME cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(5):458‐464. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00767. ; Langenberger B, Schrednitzki D, Halder AM, Busse R, Pross CM. Predicting whether patients will achieve minimal clinically important differences following hip or knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2023;12(9):512‐521. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046‐3758.129.BJR‐2023‐0070.R2. ; Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient‐acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(1):39‐48. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.867782. ; Perazzini P, Trevisan M, Sembenini P, et al. The MakoTM robotic arm‐assisted total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach: surgical technique, skills and pitfalls. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(4‐S):21‐30. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i4‐s.9659. ; Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz‐Ledezma C, Hozack WJ, Ong AC. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(9):595‐603. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos‐22‐09‐595. ; Liu Z, Bell CD, Ong AC, Wu S, Li Z, Zhang Y. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty for Crowe III and IV dysplasia. Arthroplast Today. 2020;6(2):251‐256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.02.008. ; Marchand RC, Marchand K, Taylor K, et al. Patient‐reported and radiographic outcomes of a porous‐coated acetabular cup in robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty at 2‐year follow up. J Orthop. 2023;46:78‐82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2023.10.003. ; Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Kugelman DN, Aggarwal VK, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf R. Does racial background influence outcomes following total joint arthroplasty? J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;19:139‐146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.05.017. ; Emara AK, Orr MN, Klika AK, McLaughlin JP, Molloy RM, Piuzzi NS. When is surgery performed? Trends, demographic associations, and phenotypical characterization of baseline patient‐reported outcomes before total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6):1083‐1091.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.063. ; Rubenstein WJ, Harris AHS, Hwang KM, Giori NJ, Kuo AC. Social determinants of health and patient‐reported outcomes following total hip and knee arthroplasty in Veterans. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(9):2357‐2362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.04.095. ; Konopka JA, Bloom DA, Lawrence KW, Oeding JF, Schwarzkopf RM, Lajam CM. Non‐English speakers and socioeconomic minorities are significantly less likely to complete patient‐reported outcome measures for total hip and knee arthroplasty: analysis of 16,119 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7, suppl 2):S69‐S77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.005. ; Singh JA, Lewallen DG. Patients with osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis have better functional outcomes and those with avascular necrosis worse pain outcomes compared to rheumatoid arthritis after primary hip arthroplasty: a cohort study. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741‐7015‐11‐210. ; Buchan GBJ, Hecht IICJ, Lawrie CM, Sculco PK, Kamath AF. The learning curve for a novel, fluoroscopy‐based robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty system. Int J Med Robot. 2023;19(4):e2518. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2518. ; Redmond JM, Gupta A, Hammarstedt JE, Petrakos AE, Finch NA, Domb BG. The learning curve associated with robotic‐assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(1):50‐54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.003. ; Thorey F, Klages P, Lerch M, Floerkemeier T, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G. Cup positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device: is there a learning curve? Orthopedics. 2009;32(10 suppl l l):14‐17. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447‐20090915‐52. ; Park JE, Choi R. Factors related to depression and mental health that affect the quality of life of the elderly. J Environ Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7764745. ; Peters RM, van Beers LWAH, van Steenbergen LN, et al. Similar superior patient‐reported outcome measures for anterior and posterolateral approaches after total hip arthroplasty: postoperative patient‐reported outcome measure improvement after 3 months in 12,774 primary total hip arthroplasties using the anterior, anterolateral, straight lateral, or posterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1786‐1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.055. Contributed Indexing: Keywords: arthroplasty; hip; patient‐reported outcome measures; robotic‐assisted surgery Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20240610 Date Completed: 20240610 Latest Revision: 20240610 Update Code: 20240610

Klicken Sie ein Format an und speichern Sie dann die Daten oder geben Sie eine Empfänger-Adresse ein und lassen Sie sich per Email zusenden.

BibTeX Citavi, JabRef, u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

PDF kein Volltext!
(Merkzettel, Notizen)

RIS Endnote, Citavi u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

MODS
(XML zur Weiterverarbeitung)

oder

Wählen Sie das für Sie passende Zitationsformat und kopieren Sie es dann in die Zwischenablage, lassen es sich per Mail zusenden oder speichern es als PDF-Datei.

Gewünschter Zitations-Stil:

oder

Bitte prüfen Sie, ob die Zitation formal korrekt ist, bevor Sie sie in einer Arbeit verwenden. Benutzen Sie gegebenenfalls den "Exportieren"-Dialog, wenn Sie ein Literaturverwaltungsprogramm verwenden und die Zitat-Angaben selbst formatieren wollen.

Use of a fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system resulted in greater improvements in hip-specific outcome measures at one-year compared to a CT-based robotic-assisted system.