Skip to main content
. 2025 May 16;20:466. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05866-1

Table 2.

Summary of included studies

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