Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results. There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion. The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020

Aims. Dislocation is the most common indication for further surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA) when undertaken in patients with a femoral neck fracture. This study aimed to assess the complication rates of THA with dual mobility components (THA-DMC) following a femoral neck fracture and to compare outcomes between THA-DMC, conventional THA, and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Methods. We performed a systematic review of all English language articles on THA-DMC published between 2010 and 2019 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. After the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies dealing with patients who underwent treatment for a femoral neck fracture using THA-DMC were analyzed for the rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, periprosthetic fracture, infection, mortality, and functional outcome. The review included 7,189 patients with a mean age of 77.8 years (66.4 to 87.6) and a mean follow-up of 30.9 months (9.0 to 68.0). Results. THA-DMC was associated with a significantly lower dislocation rate compared with both THA (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79) and HA (odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50). The rate of large articulations and of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.5% (n = 105) and 0.04% (n = 3) respectively. Conclusion. THA-DMC when used in patients with a femoral neck fracture is associated with a lower dislocation rate compared with conventional arthroplasty options. There was no increase in the rates of other complication when THA-DMC was used. Future cost analysis and prospective, comparative studies are required to assess the potential benefit of using THA-DMC in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):811–821

Aims

Day-case knee and hip replacement, in which patients are discharged on the day of surgery, has been gaining popularity during the last two decades, and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review presents the evidence comparing day-case to inpatient-stay surgery.