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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».