Résumé
Introduction: Despite the optimization of implant positioning, the clinical benefit of the use of robotic assistance during THA remains uncertain. In this case-control study (robotic versus manual technique) we made a retrospective short-term comparison of: (1) the functional results, (2) the complications, (3) and the influence of radiological symmetrization of the hips on the functional result. Hypothesis: The use of a robotic arm improved the functional results of a THA.Materials and method: A retrospective case-control study was performed, including patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis who underwent a robotic arm-assisted THA (THA-R). The controls (THA-C) were matched according to age, sex, body mass index and surgical approach. The Harris (HHS), Oxford (OHS) and Forgotten Joint (FJS) scores were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. At each review, complications were categorized into minor events, revision surgery with and without implant change. Radiographic analysis was performed on weight-bearing images of the pelvis 3 months postoperatively. The objective of the surgery was symmetrization of the THA in the contralateral healthy hip. For each measured parameter of the hip joint center of rotation (COR), global offset (GO) and articular leg length discrepancy (aLLD), the difference between the two sides corresponding to the delta symmetrization was compared.Results: Ninety-eight patients were included in the THA-R group and matched to 98 controls in the THA-C group. At 1 year postoperatively, the FJS and OHS scores were statistically higher in the THA-R group, respectively 82.1 ± 22.3 [8.3; 100] and 40.8 ± 8.8 [6; 48] vs. 71.2 ± 27.8 [0; 100] and 38.1 ± 9.7 [12; 48] in the THA-C group (p = 0.004 and p = 0.043). There was no difference in HHS (THA-R: 85.9 ± 15.8 [31; 100] vs. THA-C: 85.8 ± 13.3 [49–100] (p = 0.962)). The implant revision rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the THA-C group (0% vs. 5.1% (p = 0.025)). There was no difference in the reoperation without component exchange despite 3 dislocations (3.1%) in the THA-R group (5 (5.1%) vs. 9 (9.2%) (p = 0.273)). The rate of abarticular pathologies (ilio-psoas irritation and greater trochanteric bursitis) was higher in the THA-C group (10 (10.8%) vs. 2 (2%) (p = 0.016). Robotic acetabular assistance allowed a significantly better restitution of the horizontal position (THA-R: 1 mm ± 4.8 [–11.7; 12.6] vs. THA-C: 4.1 mm ± 7 [- 29.6; 28] (p = 0.0005)) and vertical COR (THA-R: 0.5 mm ± 3.1 [–6; 8.3] vs. THA-C: 2 mm ± 4.1 [–6; 14.6] (p = 0.0068)). Navigated assistance of the femur did not significantly optimize the restitution of the Global Offset (THA-R: + 2 mm ± 6.4 [-16.4; 27.6] vs. THA-C: + 0.5 mm ± 7 .7 [–34; 30.2] (p = 0.145)), or lower limb length (THA-R: + 1.1 mm ± 5 [–8.2; 13.5] vs. THA-C: + 0.3 mm ± 6 [-14.1; 22.5] (p = 0.344). The FJS was statistically correlated with the restoration of the symmetry of the COR and the aLLD. A post-hoc power analysis confirmed sufficient potency (1-=0.85).Conclusion: Robotic acetabular assistance combined with femoral navigation improves clinical outcomes of THAs with fewer short-term complications. The precision of the positioning of the implants, optimized by the computer-assisted surgery system, is correlated with the missed joint score.