Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36964615›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023

Precise acetabular positioning, discrepancy in leg length, and hip offset using a new seven-axis robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty system requires no learning curve: a retrospective study.

Run Tian, Xudong Duan, Ning Kong, Kunzheng Wang, Pei Yang

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Progress and future prospects of robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A review of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Biomedical engineering letters · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Run TianDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, China.
Xudong DuanDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, China.
Ning KongDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, China.
Kunzheng WangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, China.
Pei YangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, China. yangpei@xjtu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of the present study was to determine the learning curve for a novel seven-axis robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) system, and to explore whether it was able to provide greater accuracy in acetabular cup positioning, superior leg length discrepancy (LLD), and hip offset than conventional methods.

methodsA total of 160 patients in which unilateral THA was performed in the second affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from July 2021 to September 2022 were studied. The first 80 patients underwent robot-assisted THA, while conventional THA was performed on the subsequent 80 by the same team of experienced surgeons. The learning curve for the RA-THA system was evaluated using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The demographic data, preoperative clinical data, duration of surgery, postoperative Harris hip score (HHS) and postoperative radiographic data from patients that had conventional THA were compared.

resultsThe 80 patients who underwent primary unilateral RA-THA comprised 42 males and 38 females and were followed up for 12 weeks. Using analysis by CUSUM, the learning curve of the RA-THA system could be divided into learning and proficiency phases, the former of which consisted of the first 17 cases. There was no significant difference between the learning and proficiency phases in terms of LLD, hip offset, or accuracy of acetabular prosthesis position in the RA-THA groups. The proportion of acetabular prostheses located in the Lewinnek safe zone was 90.5% in the proficiency group and 77.5% in the conventional group, respectively, a difference that was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The absolute error between target angle and postoperative measured angle of anteversion was statistically significant in the proficiency group and the conventional group((P < 0.05). Postoperative acetabular anteversion and LLD were 19.96 ± 5.68° and 6.00 (5.00) mm in the proficiency group, respectively, and 17.84 ± 6.81° and 8.09 (4.33) mm using conventional surgery, respectively (anteversion: P = 0.049; LLD: P < 0.001).

conclusionsThe surgical team required a learning curve of 17 cases using the RA-THA system to become proficient. There was no learning curve for other parameters, namely LLD, hip offset, or accuracy of acetabular prosthesis positioning. During the proficiency phase, the RA system was superior to conventional THA for control of leg length and accuracy of acetabular cup placement.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisRoboticsAcetabulumFemaleHip JointHumansLegMaleRetrospective StudiesCumulative sum analysisCup positioningLearning curveRobot-assisted systemTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36964615
PMCPMC10037797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read44
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.