Table 1.

Evaluation of cup position in comparative studies of the literature between with and without robotic-assisted system.

	Date	Type of study	Country	Number of procedures		Robot type	Population gender			Surgical approach			Age (y)			Number of complications			FU	Outcomes studied
				No Robotic	Robotic		Non Robotic		Robotic	Non Robotic		Robotic	Conventional		Robotic	Non Robotic		Robotic
Lim et al [46]	2015	RCT	Korea	25	24	ROBODOC	M 13 F 12		M 11 F 13	NR		NR	45.6 (21–65)		51.2 (19–67)	2 (intraPPF)		0		Functional scores, complications, stem alignment, LLD, operation time
Siebel and Kafer [75]	2005	Retrospective	Germany	35	36	CASPAR	M 19 F 16		M 21 F 15	Lateral		Lateral	60.6 ± 7.0		58.9 ± 8.9	3 (1 dislocation + 2 intraPPF)		4 (2 dislocation + 1 neuro +1 infection)	18	Functional scores, complications, operation time
Nakamura et al [43, 82]	2010	RCT	Japan	71	75	ROBODOC	M 10 F 51		M 13 F 56	Post.		Post.	58 ± 9		57 ± 10	10 (1 dislocation + 4 thigh pain + 5 intraPPF		7 (4 dislocation + 3 thigh pain)	min > 4 Y	Complications, LLD, operation time
Domb et al [83]	2014	Retrospective matched-pair controlled	USA	62	69	MAKO	M 19 F 31		M 19 F 31	Post.		Ant. (fDAA)	56.7 ± 8.1		56.8 ± 7.9	0		1 (intracup malposition)	–	Complications, cup angle, safe zone of cup, operation time
El Bitar et al. ** [84]	2015	Retrospective	USA	88* (2 groups)	67	MAKO	M 12	M 23	M 29 F 38	fDDA	Post.	Posterior 67	58 ± 12.3	55.3±9.3	60.2 ± 9.6	NR		NR	–	Leg length discrepancy
							F 17	F 36		29	59
Tsai et al. [24]	2016	Retrospective	USA	14	12	MAKO	M 7 F 7		M 2 F 10	Post.		Posterior	58.7 ± 7.5		61.4 ± 8.9	0		0	NR	Cup angle, safe zone of cup, stem alignment
Bargar et al. [41]	2018	RCT	USA	22	45	ROBODOC	M 12 F 10		35 M 10 F	Post.		Posterior	59.8 ± 9.4		59.1 ± 8.2	0		0	14 Y	Functional scores
Schulz et al. [44]	2007	Retrospective	Germany	–	128	ROBODOC	–		NR	–		Lateral	–		56 (19–75)	–		17 intra op (9 technical, 8 other) 9 postop	3.8 Y	Complication, Clinical outcomes
Suarez-Ahedo et al. [57]	2017	Control study	USA	57	57	MAKO	M 20 F 37		M 20 F 37	Ant. & Post.		NR	56.9 (38.8–72.3)		56.9 (40.6–73.4)	NR		NR		Bone preservation
Domb et al. ** [38]	2015	Retrospective	USA	1752* (multi groups)	228	MAKO	–		–	DAA and post. +/− Xray+/− Nav		Ant. (DAA) & Post.	64.7 ± 11.9		58.6 ± 10.8	NR		NR	–	Cup angle, safe zone of cup, leg length discrepancy
Bargar et al. [45]	1998	Retrospective	Germany	62	65	ROBODOC	NR		NR	Post.		Post.	NR		NR	9 (4 dislocation +3 intraPPF, +2 other)		9 (4 dislocation + 2 neuro + 1 loosening +2 other)	1 at 2 Y	Complication
Hananouchi et al. [85]	2007	Retrospective	Japan	27	31	ROBODOC	NR		NR	NR		NR	57.4 ± 7.1		56.7 ± 9.2	NR		NR	24 M	Functional score, complications, stem alignment
Honl et al. [42]	2003	Randomized controlled	Germany	80	61	ROBODOC	M 24 F 56		M 24 F 37	Anterolat.		Anterolat	70.7 ± 8.3		71.5 ± 7.1	6 (3 dislocation + 1 neuro + 2 infection)		15 (11 dislocation + 4 neuro + 1 HOssif.)	2 Y	Functional score, complications, stem alignment, operation time
Kamara et al. ** [51]	2017	Retrospective	USA	296* (2 groups)	98	MAKO	M 93	M 43	M 45 F 53	M.Post	DAA	Post.	NR		NR	7a	5b	2c	NR	Complications, cup angle, operation time,
							F 105	F 55
Nishihara et al. [40]	2006	Retrospective	Japan	78	78	ORTHODOC	M 14 F 64		M 14 F 64	Post.		Post.	58 (29–77)		58 (27–81)	5 (PPF)		0	2.3 Y	Functional score, complications, stem alignment, operation time
Heng et al. [73]	2018	Retrospective	Australia	45	45	MAKO	M 32 F 13		M 25 F 20	Post.		Post.	62.8 ± 12.3		64.5 ± 9.9	3 (acetabular fractures)		2 (1 conversion +1 wound infection)	–	Intraoperative complication, operation time bleeding LOS
Kanawabe et al. [54]	2015	Prospective	USA	–	43 (38)	MAKO	–		M19 F 24	–		Post.	–		63 (48–79)	–		0 (5 technic failures)	–	Intraoperative complication, cup position accuracy
Kayani et al. [72]	2019	Prospective	UK	50	25	MAKO	M 26 F 24		M 13 F 12	Post.		Post.	69.4 ± 5.2		67.5 ± 5.8	0		0	6 W	cup angle accuracy, early complication (6weeks)
Kong et al. [52]	2020	Retrospective	China	100	86	MAKO	M 40 F 60		M 36 F 50	Post.		Post.	51.9 ± 12.6		51.9 ± 10.8	NR		NR	–	Learning curve, cup angle
Banchetti et al. [86]	2018	Retrospective	Italy	51/100***	56/120***	MAKO	M 26 F 25		M 31 F 35	Post.		Post.	69.8 ± 10.2		66.2 ± 11.1	NR		NR	2 Y	Complications, PROMS, clinical outcomes
Perets et al[77]	2017	Retrospective	USA	–	162	MAKO	–		M 73 F 89	–		Ant. & Post.	–		61.2 ± 8.9	–		12 (6 intraPPF + 1 infection+ 1 neuro+4 other)	>2 Y	PROMS, clinical outcomes
Illgen et al. ** [49]	2017	Retrospective	USA	200* (2 groups)	100	MAKO	M 42	M 50	M 42 F 58	Post.		Post.	65 ± 14	60 ± 12	62 ± 11	Dislocation		Dislocation: 0	2 Y	Cup position, operative time, blood loss, complication
							F 58	F 50		Early THA	Late THA					5	3

^*Sum of all procedures without the use of the robot in studies with more than two groups of comparison including 2 techniques assistance or approach of non-robotic THA.

^**Relating studies with multi-subgroups comparing different THA procedures without robot with a group with a robotic assistance.

^***Respondent’s patient at the follow-up.

^a3 intraoperative (femoral fractures) + 1 early dislocation + 4 revisions (1 femoral for the failure of osseointegration, 1 LLD, 1 wound infection, 1 delayed infection at 1 Y;

^bno intraoperative, 2 anterior recurrent dislocation, 3 revisions (1 psoas tenotomy, 1 metallosis with CoC, 1 ALVAL with modular neck),

^cno intraoperative complication, 1 early recurrent dislocation with revision, 1 revision for subsidence

Abbreviations. NR: non reported, intraPPF: intraoperative periprosthetic fracture, neuro: neurologic complication as palsy or lesion, post.: posterior approach, ant.: anterior approach, anterolat, HOssif.: Heterotopic ossification. Antero lateral approach DAA: Direct Anterior Approach, fDAA: DAA assisted by fluoroscopy, X-ray: surgery assisted by intraoperative fluoroscopy, Nav: surgery assisted by navigation, W: week, M: month, Y: year, –: No way in the goal of the study.