Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty
Nobuo Nakamura1, Nobuhiko Sugano, Takashi Nishii
1Center of Arthroplasty, Kyowakai Hospital, 1-24-1 Kishibe-kita, Suita, Osaka, 564-0001, Japan. nnakamu@abox2.so-net.ne.jp
Background:
The benefits of robotic techniques for implanting femoral components during THA are still controversial.
Questions/Purposes:
The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the results and complications of robotic-assisted and hand-rasping stem implantation techniques.
Method:
The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 67 months; range, 60-85 months). One hundred forty-six primary THAs on 130 patients were included in this study. Robot-assisted primary THA was performed on 75 hips and a hand-rasping technique was used on 71 hips.
Results:
At 2 and 3 years postoperatively, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical score was slightly better in the robotic-assisted group. At 5 years followup, however, the differences were not significant. Postoperative limb lengths of the robotic-milling group had significantly less variance than the hand-rasping group. At 2 years postoperatively, there was significantly more stress shielding of the proximal femur in the hand-rasping group; this difference was more significant 5 years postoperatively.
Conclusions:
Substantially more precise implant positioning seems to have led to less variance in limb-length inequality and less stress shielding of the proximal femur 5 years postoperatively.
Level Of Evidence:
Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
