Learning curve and early clinical results of total hip
arthroplasty with MAKO robot assisted posterolateral approach

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2403

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: With the maturity of total hip arthroplasty, the need for operative accuracy is highly increasing to get better operative results. The joint replacement technique assisted by MAKO robot makes the precision of the operation possible. However, this technology has a certain learning curve, and early replacement results and complications should be the major concern.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the learning curve and early clinical results of total hip arthroplasty through the posterolateral approach assisted by the MAKO robot.

METHODS: From March 2017 to March 2018, 26 patients undergoing hip arthroplasty via posterolateral approach assisted by MAKO robots in West Hospital (Haikou Orthopedics and Diabetes Hospital), Haikou Hospital, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, including 12 males and 14 females, were retrospectively analyzed. The problems and early clinical outcomes of hip replacement in the early learning curve were focused on.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The operation time was 56-155 minutes, mean (87.0 ± 16.1) minutes. The dominant bleeding was 220-850 mL, mean (336±246) mL. The acetabular abduction angle was (41.3±2.7)°. The acetabular anteversion angle was (16.4±3.4)°. The difference in lower limb length was (1.0±2.0) mm, and the femoral offset error value was (1.6±0.6) mm. Intraoperative femoral fractures occurred in one case. No infection, sciatic nerve injury or wound-related complications occurred. The weight bearing time was 3-6 weeks, mean (3.8±2.1) weeks. Harris score was (92.1±4.7) 3 months after surgery. It is indicated that the MAKO robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty via posterolateral approach showed that patient’s postoperative pain improved; the function recovered quickly; the clinical results were good; the operation time decreased with the proficiency; the prosthesis position was within the safe range; and the blood loss was within the acceptable range.

Key words: hip joint, joint replacement, MAKO robot, posterolateral approach, learning curve, prosthesis, visualization, navigation

CLC Number:

Cui Keze, Guo Xiang, Han Guibin, Chen Yuanliang, Liu Yiheng, Zhong Haibo. Learning curve and early clinical results of total hip arthroplasty with MAKO robot assisted posterolateral approach[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2020, 24(9): 1313-1317.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] PERETS I, WALSH JP, CLOSE MR, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: Clinical outcomes and complication rate. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(4):e1912.
[2] VAN OLDENRIJK J, HOOGLAND PV, TUIJTHOF GJ, et al. Soft tissue damage after minimally invasive THA. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(6):696-702.
[3] NG VY, KEAN JR, GLASSMAN AH. Limb-length discrepancy after hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1426-1436.
[4] DOMB BG, EL BITAR YF, SADIK AY, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):329-336.
[5] MATTA JM, SHAHRDAR C, FERGUSON T. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:115-124.
[6] RACHBAUER F, KAIN MS, LEUNIG M. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):311-320.
[7] JUDET J, JUDET R. The use of an artificial femoral head for arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950;32-B(2):166-173.
[8] ZAWADSKY MW, PAULUS MC, MURRAY PJ, et al. Early outcome comparison between the direct anterior approach and the mini-incision posterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: 150 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1256-1260.
[9] LESLIE IJ, WILLIAMS S, ISAAC G, et al. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(9):2259-2265.
[10] CALLANAN MC, JARRETT B, BRAGDON CR, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2): 319-329.
[11] AMUWA C, DORR LD. The combined anteversion technique for acetabular component anteversion. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):1068-1070.
[12] NG VY, KEAN JR, GLASSMAN AH. Limb-length discrepancy after hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1426-1436.
[13] BARRACK RL, KREMPEC JA, CLOHISY JC, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(19):1760-1768.
[14] DOMB BG, EL BITAR YF, SADIK AY, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):329-336.
[15] REDMOND JM, GUPTA A, HAMMARSTEDT JE, et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(1):50-54.
[16] STEPPACHER SD, KOWAL JH, MURPHY SB. Improving cup positioning using a mechanical navigation instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(2):423-428.