Are robotic-assisted and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty associated with superior outcomes in patients who have hip dysplasia?

Robotic-assisted (RA) and computer-navigated (CN) total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been demonstrated to improve component placement accuracy compared to manual THA (mTHA) for primary osteoarthritis. As hip dysplasia presents several additional challenges in component placement accuracy and leg length discrepancy (LLD) correction during THA, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate whether utilizing these platforms may be associated with superior outcomes over mTHA in patients who have hip dysplasia. PubMed, Medline, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar were searched on September 13, 2023 to identify comparative studies published after January 1, 2000 that evaluated outcomes of RA-THA or CN-THA in patients who have hip dysplasia. The query yielded 197 unique articles, which were screened for alignment with the study aims. After screening, 10 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria, comprising 946 patients. Risk of bias was evaluated via the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tool, and the mean score was 21.2 ± 1.5. Both RA-THA and CN-THA were not associated with improved acetabular anteversion and inclination when evaluating Crowe I-IV types altogether compared to mTHA, but studies reported improved accuracy for each Crowe I and II cases when assessed individually. While studies reporting acetabular cup placement within the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones consistently found higher odds of accurate positioning for RA-THA versus mTHA, accuracy in achieving targeted center of rotation was mixed. Also, studies reported no difference in LLD restoration for RA-THA and CN-THA compared to mTHA. While operative time may be increased when utilizing these platforms, they may also expedite specific sequences, offsetting most of the increase in operative time. This review highlights the advantages of RA-THA and CN-THA for patients who have DDH, particularly distinguishing Crowe I and II types as superior radiographic outcomes were achieved with these intraoperative technologies. However, there remains a need for studies to investigate whether this results in patient-reported outcome measures.