BACKGROUND:Active robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been used clinically for over 20 years, but long-term results have never been studied. The aims of this study are to determine whether active robotic THA improves clinical outcomes and results in fewer revisions over a long-term follow-up. METHODS:Patients from 2 US Food and Drug Administration clinical trials (1994-1998 and 2001-2006) who had undergone THA using either anactive robotic system or a traditional manual technique were examined to determine if any differences existed in radiographic analysis and patient pain and function using the University of California, Los Angeles; visual analog scale; Health Status Questionnaire (HSQ) pain; HSQ role physical; HSQ physical functioning; Harris pain scores; and the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores at a mean follow-up of 14 years. RESULTS: The ROBODOC group had statistically significant higher HSQ pain and Harris pain scores and lower Western Ontario and McMaster UniversitiesOsteoarthritis Index scores. There was no statistically significant difference in probability of a revision for wear between the groups (χ2 = 1.80; P = .179), and no revisions for loosening in either group. CONCLUSION: Prior studies have demonstrated improved implant fit and alignment with the use of this active robot system. This long-term study now shows no failures for stem loosening at a mean follow-up of 14 years and small but potentially important improvements in clinical outcomes in the robot group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Active robotic total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been used clinically for over 20 years, but long-term results have never been studied. The aims of this study are to determine whether active robotic THA improves clinical outcomes and results in fewer revisions over a long-term follow-up. METHODS:Patients from 2 US Food and Drug Administration clinical trials (1994-1998 and 2001-2006) who had undergone THA using either an active robotic system or a traditional manual technique were examined to determine if any differences existed in radiographic analysis and patientpain and function using the University of California, Los Angeles; visual analog scale; Health Status Questionnaire (HSQ) pain; HSQ role physical; HSQ physical functioning; Harris pain scores; and the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores at a mean follow-up of 14 years. RESULTS: The ROBODOC group had statistically significant higher HSQ pain and Harris pain scores and lower Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores. There was no statistically significant difference in probability of a revision for wear between the groups (χ2 = 1.80; P = .179), and no revisions for loosening in either group. CONCLUSION: Prior studies have demonstrated improved implant fit and alignment with the use of this active robot system. This long-term study now shows no failures for stem loosening at a mean follow-up of 14 years and small but potentially important improvements in clinical outcomes in the robot group.