Author | Year of Study | Title | Study Design - Prospective or Retrospective or RCT | Study Location |
---|---|---|---|---|
LaValva et al. [38] | 2024 | Robotics and Navigation do not affect the risk of periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip arthroplasty | Retrospective | USA |
Rogers et al. [47] | 2024 | Lower 90-day inpatient readmission and 1-year reoperation in patients undergoing robotic versus manual total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach | Prospective | USA |
Karlin et al. [30] | 2024 | Patient Outcomes of Conventional Versus Robot Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty | Retrospectively | USA |
Fontalis et al. [19] | 2024 | A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing CT-based Planning with Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Robotic Arm-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty | Prospective RCT | UK |
Alessia-Mazzola et al. [2] | 2024 | Direct anterior approach with conventional instruments versus robotic posterolateral approach in elective total hip replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a case–control study | Retrospective | Italy |
Fontalis et al. [18] | 2023 | Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Conventional Total HipArthroplasty Versus Robotic-Arm Assisted Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Study With Minimum 3 Years’ Follow-Up | Prospective | UK |
Foissey et al. [17] | 2022 | Image‑based robotic‑assisted total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach allows a better orientation of the acetabular cup and a better restitution of the centre of rotation than a conventional procedure | Retrospective | France |
Coulomb et al. [12] | 2023 | Does acetabular robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty with femoral navigation improve clinical outcomes at 1-year post-operative? A case-matched propensity score study comparing 98 robotic-assisted versus 98 manual implantation hip arthroplasties | Retrospective | France |
Domb et al. [14] | 2020 | Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Nested Comparison Against Manual Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score–Matched Study | Retrospective | USA |
Peng et al. [44] | 2019 | In vivo kinematic analysis of patients with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty during gait at 1‐year follow‐up | Retrospective | USA |
Kayani et al. [34] | 2019 | The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty | Prospective | UK |
Kayani et al. (2) [52] | 2019 | Assuring the Long-Term Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Triad of Variables | Prospective | UK |
Heng et al. [23] | 2018 | Conventional vs. Robotic Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgical Time, Transfusion Rates, Length of Stay, Complications and Learning Curve | Retrospective | Australia |
Suarez Ahedo et al [55] | 2017 | Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Smaller Acetabular Cup Size in Relation to the Femoral Head Size: A matched-pair controlled study | Retrospective | USA |
Tsai et al. [54] | 2016 | Does haptic robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty better restore native acetabular and femoral anatomy? | Retrospective | USA |
El Bitar et al. [16] | 2015 | Leg-Length Discrepancy After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Robot-Assisted, Posterior, Fluoroscopy-Guided Anterior, and Conventional Posterior Approaches | Retrospective | USA |
Perets et al. [45] | 2021 | Short-term Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Pair Matched Controlled Study | Prospective | USA |
Incesoy et al [27] | 2023 | CT-based, Robotic Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty (MAKO) through anterior approach provides improved cup placement accuracy but no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to conventional technique | Retrospective | Turkey |
Nicholas D Clement et al. [11] | 2021 | Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty | Prospective | Scotland |
Banchetti et al. [3] | 2018 | Comparison of conventional versus robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty using the Mako system: An Italian retrospective study | Retrospective | Italy |