Robotic Primary and Revision THA for the Femoral Side

  • Nobuo Nakamura


Robot-assisted THA for femoral side is one of the oldest appreciations of robotics in orthopedic surgery. The first active robotic system, ROBODOC, has been used in many countries. Originally, it utilized pin-based registration system and required locator pin implantation in the patient femur before THA. Subsequently, non-pin-based surface registration technique was developed, which eliminated the need for pin implantation and pin-related complications. Besides the function of femoral milling during primary THA, this system can also selectively remove bone cement from the femoral canal during revision THA. Although one study shows a higher revision rate of robotic femoral surgery than a conventional technique, many studies show accurate femoral preparation, same or slightly better postoperative function, better alignment of the stem, less fat embolism, less stress shielding, and a lower incidence of femoral fracture by using the robot than conventional techniques.


Robotic Primary total hip arthroplasty Revision total hip arthroplasty Femoral 


  1. 1.
    Bargar WL, Bauer A, Borner M. Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop. 1998:82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, Musits B, Taylor RH, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Hanson W. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1992:57–66.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:31–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2353. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu LD, Hahne HJ, Hassenpflug J. The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Zhejiang Univ Sci. 2004;5:1270–8. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneider J, Kalender W. Geometric accuracy in robot-assisted total hip replacement surgery. Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8:135–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazoochian F, Pellengahr C, Huber A, Kircher J, Refior HJ, Jansson V. Low accuracy of stem implantation in THR using the CASPAR-system: anteversion measurements in 10 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:261–4. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siebel T, Kafer W. Clinical outcome following robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a controlled and prospective study of seventy-one patients. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2005;143:391–8. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nogler M, Maurer H, Wimmer C, Gegenhuber C, Bach C, Krismer M. Knee pain caused by a fiducial marker in the medial femoral condyle: a clinical and anatomic study of 20 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:477–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Tanaka H, Nakamura N, Yoshikawa H, Ochi T. Clinical accuracy evaluation of femoral canal preparation using the ROBODOC system. J Orthop Sci. 2004;9:452–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Nakamura N, Yoshikawa H. Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:957–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T, Kakimoto A, Miki H. A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1072–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamura N, Sugano N. Sakai T. Nakahara I. Comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of primary cementless total hip arthroplasty; minimum ten years follow-up results. Proceedings of International CAOS meeting, 2014. 2014.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hananouchi T, Sugano N, Nishii T, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kakimoto A, Yamamura M, Yoshikawa H. Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. J Orthop Res. 2007;25:1062–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagio K, Sugano N, Takashina M, Nishii T, Yoshikawa H, Ochi T. Effectiveness of the ROBODOC system in preventing intraoperative pulmonary embolism. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:264–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, Carrero V, Lampe F, Dries S, Quante M, Schwieger K, Hille E, Morlock MM. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1470–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bach CM, Winter P, Nogler M, Gobel G, Wimmer C, Ogon M. No functional impairment after Robodoc total hip arthroplasty: gait analysis in 25 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73:386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Kakimoto A, Yamamura M. Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty using surface registration techniques: a short-term clinical report. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2009;4:157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamamura M, Nakamura N, Miki H, Nishii T, Sugano N. Cement removal from the femur using the ROBODOC system in revision total hip arthroplasty. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:347–58. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C, von Haugwitz A, Meiners J, Kienast B, Tarabolsi M, Kammal M, Jurgens C. Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3:301–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, Kim YH, Yoo MC, Rhyu KH. Causes and patterns of aborting a robot-assisted arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:621–5. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sugano N. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5:1–9. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyowakai HospitalSuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations