Robot-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty for Arthrodesed Hips.
cup positioning
hip arthrodesis
robot-assisted surgery
total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Therapeutics and clinical risk management
ISSN: 1176-6336
Titre abrégé: Ther Clin Risk Manag
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101253281
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
01
2020
accepted:
15
04
2020
entrez:
23
5
2020
pubmed:
23
5
2020
medline:
23
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conversion of arthrodesed hips to total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains technically demanding. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted THA in arthrodesed hips. We retrospectively analyzed 45 ankylosing spondylitis patients with hip arthrodesis in the Chinese PLA General Hospital between August 2018 and August 2019. All surgeries were carried out by one single surgeon. The patients were followed at 3 months after surgery. Gender, body mass index, angle of hip arthrodesis, operating time, intraoperative fluoroscopic times, postoperative length of hospitalization, cup positioning, postoperative leg length discrepancy, offset discrepancy, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and postoperative Harris Hip Score were collected for all patients. Twenty-two patients (35 hips) who underwent robot-assisted THA and 23 patients (37 hips) who underwent manual THA were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in demographics and arthrodesed angles between the two groups. The fluoroscopic times during manual THA were significantly higher than those during robot-assisted THA (2.16±1.61 vs 0.47±0.61, respectively, Compared with manual THA for arthrodesed hips, robot-assisted THA had significant advantages in improving the frequency of achieving cup positioning within the target zone with diminished radiation dose and no increase in operating time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Conversion of arthrodesed hips to total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains technically demanding. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted THA in arthrodesed hips.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed 45 ankylosing spondylitis patients with hip arthrodesis in the Chinese PLA General Hospital between August 2018 and August 2019. All surgeries were carried out by one single surgeon. The patients were followed at 3 months after surgery. Gender, body mass index, angle of hip arthrodesis, operating time, intraoperative fluoroscopic times, postoperative length of hospitalization, cup positioning, postoperative leg length discrepancy, offset discrepancy, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and postoperative Harris Hip Score were collected for all patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-two patients (35 hips) who underwent robot-assisted THA and 23 patients (37 hips) who underwent manual THA were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in demographics and arthrodesed angles between the two groups. The fluoroscopic times during manual THA were significantly higher than those during robot-assisted THA (2.16±1.61 vs 0.47±0.61, respectively,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with manual THA for arthrodesed hips, robot-assisted THA had significant advantages in improving the frequency of achieving cup positioning within the target zone with diminished radiation dose and no increase in operating time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32440134
doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S246565
pii: 246565
pmc: PMC7213954
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
357-368Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Chai et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011 Sep;4(3):151-6
pubmed: 21728013
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Oct;31(10):2353-63
pubmed: 27325369
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2987-94
pubmed: 23645336
Bone Joint J. 2015 May;97-B(5):611-6
pubmed: 25922453
Orthop Surg. 2016 Aug;8(3):352-9
pubmed: 27627719
Surg Technol Int. 2014 Mar;24:302-6
pubmed: 24574012
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):329-36
pubmed: 23990446
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Aug;71(8):1101-1108
pubmed: 29669197
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Aug;79(8):1181-9
pubmed: 9278078
J Rheumatol. 2002 Jun;29(6):1342; author reply 1342
pubmed: 12064860
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Mar;30(3):392-7
pubmed: 25453633
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4):427-33
pubmed: 12066271
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Sep;23(6):859-66
pubmed: 18722294
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 30;374(26):2563-74
pubmed: 27355535
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7):1037-41
pubmed: 17920478
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Mar;60(2):217-20
pubmed: 641088
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1 Suppl A):37-43
pubmed: 26733639
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jun;32(6):1890-1893
pubmed: 28111126
Hip Int. 2015 Mar-Apr;25(2):142-5
pubmed: 25362871
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep;22(6):871-5
pubmed: 17826279
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Aug;32(8):2474-2479
pubmed: 28438449
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Aug;23(5):643-9
pubmed: 18655949
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 May 23;13(1):123
pubmed: 29792206
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Jan;57(1):27-30
pubmed: 123532
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Dec;30(12):2204-7
pubmed: 26253480
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Apr;25(3):498.e5-9
pubmed: 19195837
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7S):S71-S73
pubmed: 30718173
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Oct 11;15:344
pubmed: 25306112
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Jan;94(1):32-6
pubmed: 22219244
Int Orthop. 2019 Aug;43(8):1823-1829
pubmed: 30242516
J Autoimmun. 2014 Feb-Mar;48-49:128-33
pubmed: 24534717
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Jan;15(1):52-8
pubmed: 10654462
Hip Int. 2015 Nov-Dec;25(6):531-6
pubmed: 26391264