Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review

• Published in: Hip international Vol. 34; no. 5; pp. 578 - 587
• Main Authors: Lawrence, Kyle W, Rajahraman, Vinaya, Meftah, Morteza, Rozell, Joshua C, Schwarzkopf, Ran, Arshi, Armin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-09-2024
• Subjects: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods; Female; Humans; Male; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods; patient-reported outcomes; total hip arthroplasty; systematic review; minimal clinically important difference; robot-assisted; Computer-assisted navigation
• ISSN: 1120-7000; 1724-6067; 1724-6067
• DOI: 10.1177/11207000241241797

Introduction:
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) using computer-assisted navigation (N-THA) and robot-assisted surgery (RA-THA) has been increasingly adopted to improve implant positioning and offset/leg-length restoration. Whether clinically meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional THA (C-THA) are achieved with intraoperative technology has not been established. This systematic review aimed to assess whether published relative PROM improvements with technology use in THA achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).
Methods:
PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed for studies comparing PROMs for primary N-THA or RA-THA with C-THA as the control group. Relative improvement differences between groups were compared to established MCID values. Reported clinical and radiographic differences were assessed. Review of N-THA and RA-THA literature yielded 6 (n = 2580) and 10 (n = 2786) studies, respectively, for analyses.
Results:
Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROM scores were reported in 2/6 (33.3%) studies comparing N-THA with C-THA, though only 1 (16.7%) reported clinically significant relative improvements. Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROMs were reported in 6/10 (60.0%) studies comparing RA-THA and C-THA, though none reported clinically significant relative improvements. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-THA and RA-THA were reported in 83.3% and 70.0% of studies, respectively. Only 1 study reported a significant improvement in revision rates with RA-THA as compared to C-THA.
Conclusions:
Reported PROM scores in studies comparing N-THA or RA-THA to C-THA often do not achieve clinically significant relative improvements. Future studies reporting PROMs should be interpreted in the context of validated MCID values to accurately establish the clinical impact of intraoperative technology.