A Comparison of Component Positioning Between Fluoroscopy-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

BackgroundThis single-surgeon retrospective study examined a consecutive series of direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Differences for the accuracy of acetabular component placement, leg length discrepancy, femoral offset, and absolute global offset difference were measured for patients who underwent hip replacement surgery with either fluoroscopic or robotic guidance. MethodsOne hundred THAs were included in both the fluoroscopically guided and robotically guided groups in the study. The program TraumaCad was used to analyze the preoperative and 6-week postoperative standing anteroposterior pelvic radiographs used in this study to evaluate the accuracy of component positioning. ResultsRobotic-guided surgery demonstrated a small improvement in acetabular inclination error, 3.8° average robotic error vs 4.63° average fluoroscopic error (P < .01). There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy for acetabular anteversion, leg length discrepancy, femoral offset, or global offset difference between the 2 groups. There was also no significant difference in the placement of acetabular components into the Lewinnek safe zone or Callanan safe zone. Both fluoroscopically guided and robotically guided THA patients had similar patterns of error, with excessive anteversion and inclination being more common than inadequate anteversion or inclination. ConclusionThe findings from our study question the use of haptic robotic guidance during direct anterior approach THA when compared to fluoroscopic guidance.