To compare the clinical effects of robot-assisted (RA) and conventional manual (CM) in total hip arthroplasty(THA).

Published clinical studies on the treatment of robot-assisted and conventional manual in total hip arthroplasty were searched by five databases, including PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database(Embase), Ovid database, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The literatures including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RA versus CM in THA were obtained. The meta-analysis and heterogeneity test were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

Six RCTs reporting 686 patients underwent total hip arthroplasty were included. Meta analysis results showed there was no significant statistical difference in Harris score[weighted mean difference(WMD)=1.76, 95% (CI)(-1.10, -4.62)], the Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities(WOMAC) osteoarthritis index score[WMD=-1.71, 95% CI(-5.42, 1.99)], leg length discrepancy (LLD) [OR=0.97, 95% CI(0.51, 1.82)] or heterotopic ossification[OR=1.18, 95% CI(0.49, 0.85)] (all P> 0.05). However, RA THA was significantly better in improving the MerieD′Aubigne score[WMD=0.56, 95% CI(0.05, 1.06)], the stem alignment [WMD=-0.68, 95% CI(-0.94, -0.43)]and reducing intraoperative complications [OR=0.34, 95% CI(0.12, 0.96)] and postoperative thigh pain[OR=0.30, 95% CI(0.11, 0.86)] comparing with CM THA(all P<0.05). Compared with the CM group, the RA group showed longer operation time and higher risk of postoperative dislocation.

RA total hip arthroplasty was significantly better in improving the MerieD′Aubigne score, the stem alignment and reducing intraoperative complications and postoperative thigh pain comparing with CM, but compared with CM group, RA group has longer operation time and higher risk of postoperative dislocation.