Improved Functional Outcomes with Robotic Compared with Manual Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Functional outcome following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is affected by accurate component positioning and restoration of hip biomechanics. Robotic-assisted THA (rTHA) has been shown to improve accuracy of component positioning, but its impact on functional outcomes has not been demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to compare: 1) operative time; 2) estimated blood loss; 3) postoperative complications; and 4) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients who either underwent rTHA or manual THA (mTHA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, a single-center database was used to identify all patients who underwent primary THA since introduction of rTHA at a large academic medical center. Surgical factors including operative time and estimated blood loss as well as postoperative complications were recorded. Validated PROMs following rTHA (n = 100) were compared with consecutive mTHA cases (n = 100) performed by the same fellowship-trained surgeon at a minimum one-year follow-up (24 ± 6 months). PROMs included the Short-Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12), UCLA activity score (UCLA), Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). A categorical analysis was performed to determine differences in proportions of patients with mHHS scores of 90 to 100, 80 to 89, 70 to 79, and < 70 points between the two groups. Chi-square and two-tailed t-tests were used to compare categorical and continuous data between cohorts. RESULTS: Mean operative time was nine minutes longer for the rTHA group compared with the mTHA group (131 ± 23 min vs. 122 ± 29 min, respectively, p = 0.012). Estimated intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced for the rTHA group when compared to the mTHA group (374 ± 133 mL vs. 423 ± 186 mL, p = 0.035), and there was no difference in overall complication rates between the two groups (p = 0.101). Robotic-assisted THA demonstrated significantly higher mean postoperative mHHS (92.1 ± 10.5 vs. 86.1 ± 16.2, p = 0.002) and mean UCLA scores (6.3 ± 1.8 vs. 5.8 ± 1.7, p = 0.033) compared with mTHA. The difference between pre- and postoperative mHHS scores was statistically significant when comparing rTHA with mTHA (43.0 ± 18.8 vs. 37.4 ± 18.3, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in SF-12 or WOMAC scores. There was a significantly higher proportion of patients with mHHS scores between 90 to 100 points (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.034) and a lower percentage with scores < 70 points (6% vs. 19%, p = 0.005) in the rTHA cohort compared with the mTHA cohort. DISCUSSION: The rTHA cohort demonstrated significantly higher mean postoperative UCLA scores, higher mean postoperative mHHS scores, and a greater percentage of patients with mHHS of 90 to 100 points compared with mTHA at a minimum one-year follow-up. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that robotic-assisted THA leads to improved patient-reported outcomes. The observed improvement in functional outcomes following rTHA is encouraging and warrants additional multi-center studies to determine if these advantages are maintained at longer follow-up intervals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».