Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Recovery Time and Success: A Comparative Study of Robotic and Manual Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes
Perry L Lim1, Kevin Y Wang1, Nicholas Sauder1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts.
Background:
Despite the growing utilization of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), major debate remains regarding its comparative effectiveness in achieving optimal patient outcomes compared to manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). This study aimed to compare both the rate and time to achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) between rTHA and mTHA.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing 341 rTHAs with a 1:3 propensity score-matched cohort of 1,023 mTHAs performed from 2016 to 2022. Propensity scores were generated based on age, sex, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using preoperative and postoperative scores of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Physical, PROMIS Physical Function-10a (PF-10a), and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS). The time to achieve MCID was assessed using survival curves with and without interval censoring, and statistical comparisons were performed using log-rank and weighted log-rank tests.
Results:
Manual total hip arthroplasty demonstrated a significantly higher rate of achieving MCID for PROMIS Global Physical (84.1 versus 79.8%, P = 0.003) and HOOS-PS (60.0 versus 44.9%, P < 0.001), while rates for PROMIS PF-10a were similar (58.6 versus 56.0%, P = 0.085). In the interval-censored analysis, rTHA achieved MCID for HOOS-PS significantly faster than mTHA (0.67 versus 1.0 months, P < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found for PROMIS Global Physical (0.24 versus 0.70 months, P = 0.18) and PROMIS PF-10a (1.60 versus 3.03 months, P = 0.73) when compared to mTHA.
Conclusions:
We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis of rTHA and mTHA, accounting for baseline characteristics, but not factors such as case difficulty and anatomic complexity. We found that rTHA achieved MCID faster, while mTHA had a higher overall proportion of MCID achievement. Robotic-assisted surgery may expedite initial recovery, while manual techniques may lead to better long-term outcomes.
