St Mart et al. conclude in their review:
Given the already high satisfaction rate of manual THA, further high-quality comparative studies are required utilizing outcome scores that are not limited by high ceiling effects to assess whether robotic systems justify their additional expense
The first part is very often ignored when robotics and other new technologies are hyped. New techniques can only succeed if they solve a problem that has existed. Answers can be given only if there is a question to be answered.
Traditional THA is already very good procedure. Survival is high. Reasons for revision are largely patient-related, such as infection, dislocation and fracture. It is extremely relevant to ask: what part in the modern THA robotics will improve?