Search

Background: Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been largely studied to confirm its advantages in terms of accurate component positioning, microembolus formation, less blood loss, and so on, but is currently usually performed under tourniquet due to its longer operative time than conventional TKA. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of tourniquet use in robot-assisted TKA on blood loss, pain, functional recovery, and complications. Methods: Patients scheduled for robot-assisted TKA were prospectively randomized into a tourniquet or non-tourniquet group (each n = 14). The primary outcome measure was blood loss. The secondary outcome measures were operation time; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores; time to achieve the first straight-leg raise; swelling of the thigh, knee, and calf; range of motion; Hospital for Special Surgery score; length of stay; and postoperative complications. Results: There was no significant difference in total blood loss between the tourniquet and non-tourniquet groups (738.57 ± 276.158 vs. 866.85 ± 243.422 ml, P = 0.061). The tourniquet group showed significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), but higher hidden blood loss (P = 0.002). The non-tourniquet group showed better knee range of motion on postoperative days (PODs) 1–3 (all P < 0.001), less thigh swelling on PODs 2 and 3 (P < 0.05), earlier straight-leg raising (P = 0.044), and shorter length of stay (P = 0.044). Thigh pain VAS score at 1 month after surgery was significantly greater in the tourniquet group (P < 0.001), as was knee pain during activity and at rest on PODs 2–3 (all P < 0.05). The tourniquet group also showed a significantly higher rate of tension blisters (28.8% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.038). Conclusions: Tourniquet use during robot-assisted TKA does not reduce total blood loss, and it appears to increase postoperative pain, aggravate muscle injury, and prolong postoperative recovery. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR2100041800. Registered 5 January 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This article aimed to explore the efficacy of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in improving preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making. Methods: In this single-center, prospective, randomized clinical controlled trial, 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups: conventional THA (cTHA) and robotic arm-assisted THA (rTHA). The rTHA underwent procedures using a robot-assisted surgical system, which generated three-dimensional models to determine the most appropriate prosthesis size and position. The standard process of replacement was executed in cTHA planned preoperatively via X-ray by experienced surgeons. Differences between predicted and actual prosthetic size, prosthetic position, and leg length were evaluated. Results: Sixty patients were included in the study, but one patient was not allocated due to anemia. No significant preoperative baseline data difference was found between the two groups. The actual versus predicted implantation size of both groups revealed that 27/30 (90.0%) in the rTHA group and 25/29 (86.2%) in the cTHA group experienced complete coincidence. The coincidence rate for the femoral stem was higher in the rTHA group (83.3%) than that in the cTHA group (62.7%). Between the actual and predicted rTHA, the difference in anteversion/inclination degree (< 6°) was largely dispersed, while cTHA was more evenly distributed in degree (< 9°). The differences in leg length between the surgical side and contralateral side showed a significant deviation when comparing the two groups (P = 0.003), with 0.281 (− 4.17 to 3.32) mm in rTHA and 3.79 (1.45–6.42) mm in cTHA. Conclusion: Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty can be valuable for preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) boasts superior accuracy in implant placement, but there is a lack of effective assessment in perioperative management in the context of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of rTHA versus conventional total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) in ERAS-managed patients. Methods: In this prospective trial, a total of 60 eligible patients aged between 18 and 80 years were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either rTHA or cTHA. The primary outcomes included blood loss parameters. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the operation, surgical time, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, Harris score, and postoperative complications. Results: The study cohort analyzed 59 eligible participants, 30 of whom underwent rTHA and 29 of whom underwent cTHA. Analysis could not be conducted for one patient due to severe anemia. Notably, the cTHA group had a significantly shorter surgical time than the rTHA group (69.49 ± 18.97 vs. 104.20 ± 19.63 min, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the rTHA and cTHA groups for blood loss parameters, including total blood loss (1280.30 ± 404.01 vs. 1094.86 ± 494.39 ml, P = 0.137) and drainage volume (154.35 ± 121.50 vs. 159.13 ± 135.04 ml, P = 0.900), as well as intraoperative blood loss (126.67 ± 38.80 vs. 118.52 ± 60.68 ml, P = 0.544) and hidden blood loss (982.43 ± 438.83 vs. 784.00 ± 580.96 ml, P = 0.206). Only one patient in the cTHA group required allogeneic blood transfusion. At 3 months postoperatively, both groups showed improvements in WOMAC pain score, WOMAC stiffness score, WOMAC physical function score, and Harris score, with no significant differences found between the two groups. Few complications were reported in both groups without significant differences. Conclusions: Despite the longer surgical time, rTHA did not negatively affect blood loss, pain, or functional recovery or lead to an increased risk of complications in ERAS-managed patients, suggesting that rTHA can be safely and effectively incorporated into an ERAS program for primary THA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze mid- to long-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) following failed internal fixation of femoral neck fracture. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 345 patients with femoral neck fracture who underwent THA after failure of internal fixation at our hospital between January, 2003 and December, 2019. Patients older than 55 years (n = 175) and patients no older than 55 years (n = 170) were compared in terms of complications and survival rates during follow-up, which lasted a mean of 6 years. Results: The two age groups showed similarly low incidence of complications and similarly long periods of survival without revision surgery. Only three younger patients and two older patients underwent revision surgery during follow-up. The two groups showed similarly high survival rates at the end of follow-up (> 93%). Younger patients showed significantly bettter Harris hip score at last follow-up (90.2 vs. 88.1 points, p < 0.001) without clinically significant difference, but they required THA significantly earlier after internal fixation (4.4 vs. 6.8 years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: THA after failed internal fixation of femoral neck fracture is a well tolerated and effective procedure in older and younger patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]