Background:This systematic review aimed to present an updated analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (robotic THA) and conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (manual THA).Methods:A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic review was performed using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. Controlled studies comparing primary robotic THA and manual THA utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. We also compared radiographic outcomes, dislocation rates, and revision surgical procedures between groups. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools were used to assess study quality and risk of bias.Results:Of 765 studies identified, 7 articles comparing robotic THA with manual THA met inclusion criteria. A total of 658 patients were assessed, 335 of whom underwent robotic THA. The majority of studies found no significant differences (p > 0.05) in PROMs between the 2 techniques. Two low-quality studies (Level III) found significantly better postoperative PROMs favoring robotic THA at 2 years. When assessing radiographic outcomes, 6 studies showed that robotic THA resulted in more consistent and accurate component placement. No differences in postoperative dislocations, complications, or revision rates were found between groups except in 1 study, which found significantly more dislocations and revisions in the robotic THA cohort. Reported operative times were a mean of 12 to 25 minutes longer when using robotic THA.Conclusions:The existing literature comparing robotic THA and manual THA is scarce and low-quality, with findings limited by methodological flaws in study design. Although evidence exists to support increased accuracy and reproducibility of THA component placement with robotic THA, this has not been shown to reduce postoperative dislocation and revision rates. Based on the available evidence, functional outcomes are comparable between techniques, and robotic THA appears to be associated with longer operative times. To fully evaluate the utility of robotic THA, additional well-designed, prospective controlled studies with continuous long-term monitoring are required.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The intermetatarsal joint between the fourth and fifth metatarsals (4-5 IM) is important in defining fifth metatarsal fractures. The purpose of the current study was to quantify this joint in order to determine the mean cartilage area, the percentage of the articulation that is cartilage, and to give the clinician data to help understand the joint anatomy as it relates to fifth metatarsal fracture classification. Methods: Twenty cadaver 4-5 IM joints were dissected. Digital images were taken and the articular cartilage was quantified by calibrated digital imaging software. Results: For the lateral fourth proximal intermetatarsal articulation, the mean area of articulation was 188 ± 49 mm2, with 49% of the area composed of articular cartilage. The shape of the articular cartilage had 3 variations: triangular, oval, and square. A triangular variant was the most common (80%, 16 of 20 specimens). For the medial fifth proximal intermetatarsal articulation, the mean area of articulation was 143 ± 30 mm2, with 48% of the joint surface being composed of articular cartilage. The shape of the articular surface was oval or triangular. An oval variant was the most common (75%, 15 of 20 specimens). Conclusion: This study supports the notion that the 4-5 IM joint is not completely articular and has both fibrous and cartilaginous components. Clinical Relevance: The clinical significance of this study is that it quantifies the articular surface area and shape. This information may be useful in understanding fifth metatarsal fracture extension into the articular surface and to inform implant design and also help guide surgeons intraoperatively in order to minimize articular damage.