Maintaining accuracy of component placement is an important step in ensuring the long-term stability of components during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Computer-assisted navigation has improved accuracy but errors associated with the registration process are known to impact the accuracy of final measurements. The purpose of this cadaver study was to determine the registration error associated with a novel mini-navigation system.
Methods:
3 board-certified orthopaedic surgeons performed 4 THA procedures each via the posterolateral approach on 6 cadavers (12 hips) using the mini-navigation tool. Pre- and post-operative radiographs and post-operative computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Image analysis was performed by 2 radiologists not involved in the surgical procedures. During registration, surgeons aligned the alignment rod with the anterior pelvic plane (APP) to provide a reference plane for comparison with traditional navigation. Cup position from the device was compared with measurements gathered from post-op imaging.
Results:
The mean difference between CT and device measurements for inclination was -1.7° (standard deviation [SD] 4.9°), while the mean absolute difference was 4.2° (SD 3.2°). The mean difference between anteversion angles calculated from CT scans and from the device was -3.5° (SD 4.5°), with an absolute difference of 4.0° (SD 4.0°). 100% (12/12) of inclination measurements and 92% (11/12) of anteversion measurements fell within both the clinical and statistical limits of agreement when analyzed via the Bland-Altman technique.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that the registration error associated with this new mini-navigation system compares favourably with the known registration error associated with traditional navigation systems.
ElkinsJMCallaghanJJBrownTD. The 2014 Frank Stinchfield Award: The landing zone for wear and stability in total hip arthroplasty is smaller than we thought: a computational analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):441-452.
2.
HartAJMuirhead-AllwoodSPorterMet al. Which factors determine the wear rate of large-diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements? Multivariate analysis of two hundred and seventy-six components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):678-685.
3.
MatharuGSDanielJZiaeeHMcMinnDJ. Failure of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):416-418.
4.
RibasMCardenasCAstaritaEMoyaEBellottiV. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: mid-term results in 486 cases and current indication in our institution. Hip Int. 2014;24(Suppl 10):S19-S24.
5.
Rodriguez de la FlorMHernandez-VaqueroDFernandez-CarreiraJM. Metal presence in hair after metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(12): 2025-2031.
6.
CarrothersADGilbertREJaiswalARichardsonJB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(10):1344-1350.
7.
PaproskyWG. The causes and management of hip instability: an algorithmic approach. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(Supp 8):41.
8.
BarrackRLKrempecJAClohisyJCet al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(19):1760-1768.
9.
KotwalRSGanapathiMJohnAMahesonMJonesSA. Outcome of treatment for dislocation after primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(3):321-326.
10.
CroweJFSculcoTPKahnB. Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:175-182.
11.
BozicKJKurtzSMLauEOngKVailTPBerryDJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128-133.
12.
MasaokaTYamamotoKShishidoTet al. Study of hip joint dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2006;30(1):26-30.
13.
NishiiTSuganoNMikiHKoyamaTTakaoMYoshikawaH. Influence of component positions on dislocation: computed tomographic evaluations in a consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(2):162-166.
14.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrRCompereCLZimmermanJR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217-220.
15.
MetcalfeMJiHlMolodianovitshKSidhomPFayeLWebsterG. Hip and knee replacements in Canada: Canadian joint replacement registry, 2015 annual report. 2015.
16.
GurgelHMCrociATCabritaHAVicenteJRLeonhardtMCRodriguesJC. Acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty with and without a computer-assisted system: a prospective, randomized and controlled study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):167-171.
17.
LassRKubistaBOlischarBFrantalSWindhagerRGiureaA. Total hip arthroplasty using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(4):786-791.
18.
KalteisTHandelMBäthisHPerlickLTingartMGrifkaJ. Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: is it as accurate as CT-based navigation?J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(2):163-167.
19.
SendtnerESchusterTWörnerMKalteisTGrifkaJRenkawitzT. Accuracy of acetabular cup placement in computer-assisted, minimally-invasive THR in a lateral decubitus position. Int Orthop. 2011;35(6):809-815.
20.
ParratteSArgensonJNFlecherXAubaniacJM. Positionnement acétabulaire assisté par ordinateur dans les prothèses totales de hanche. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot. 2007;93(3):238-246.
21.
ParratteSArgensonJN. Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):494-499.
22.
MoskalJTCappsSG. Acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty: an evidence-based analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1432-1437.
23.
McCollumDEGrayWJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(261):159-170.
24.
AbdelMPvon RothPJenningsMTHanssenADPagnanoMW. What Safe Zone? The Vast Majority of Dislocated THAs Are Within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular Component Position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):386-391.
25.
JassimSSBenjamin-LaingHDouglasSLHaddadFS. Robotic and navigation systems in orthopaedic surgery: how much do our patients understand?Clin Orthop Surg. 2014;6(4):462-467.
SloverJDTostesonANBozicKJRubashHEMalchauH. Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(7):1492-1500.
28.
BrownMLReedJDDrinkwaterCJ. Imageless computer-assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: one surgeons initial experience. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):1015-1020.
29.
HohmannEBryantATetsworthK. Anterior pelvic soft tissue thickness influences acetabular cup positioning with imageless navigation. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):945-952.
30.
DavisETSchubertMWegnerMHaimerlM. A new method of registration in navigated hip arthroplasty without the need to register the anterior pelvic plane. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(1):55-60.
31.
YbingerTKumpanWHoffartHEMuschalikBBullmannWZweymüllerK. Accuracy of navigation-assisted acetabular component positioning studied by computed tomography measurements: methods and results. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(6):812-817.
32.
GrossoPSniderMMuirJM. A smart tool for intraoperative leg length targeting in total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. Open Orthop J. 2016;10(1):490-499.
33.
PaproskyWGMuirJM. Intellijoint HIP(®): a 3D mini-optical navigation tool for improving intraoperative accuracy during total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:401-408.
34.
ZengYLaiOJShenBet al. Three-dimensional computerized preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty with high-riding dislocation developmental dysplasia of the hip. Orthop Surg. 2014;6(2):95-102.
35.
XuyiWJianpingPJunfengZChaoSYiminCXiaodongC. Application of three-dimensional computerised tomography reconstruction and image processing technology in individual operation design of developmental dysplasia of the hip patients. Int Orthop. 2016;40(2):255-265.
36.
AltmanDGBlandJ. M.Meaurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32(3):307-317.
37.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310.
38.
GiavarinaD. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(2):141-151.
39.
ManzottiACerveriPDe MomiEPullenCConfalonieriN. Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):19-24.
40.
LeeYSY. T. R. Error in socket alignment due to the thick anterior pelvic soft tissues. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(5):699-706.
41.
RicholtJAEffenbergerHRittmeisterME. How does soft tissue distribution affect anteversion accuracy of the palpation procedure in image-free acetabular cup navigation? An ultrasonographic assessment. Comput Aided Surg. 2005; 10(2):87-92.
42.
VigdorchikJMCrossMBBognerEAMillerTTMuirJMSchwarzkopfR. A cadaver study to evaluate the accuracy of a new 3D mini-optical navigation tool for total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:447-454.
43.
WolfstadtJAmenabarTSafirOBacksteinDGrosAKuzykP, eds. An intelligent instrument for improved leg length and hip offset accuracy in total hip arthroplasty. The Combined Meeting of the American Orthopedic Association and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association; 2014 June 18-21, 2014; Montreal, Quebec.
44.
RenkawitzTSchusterTHeroldTet al. Measuring leg length and offset with an imageless navigation system during total hip arthroplasty: is it really accurate?Int J Med Robot. 2009;5(2):192-197.
45.
McArthurBAVulcanoECrossMNguyenJDella ValleAGSalvatiE. Acetabular component orientation in total hip arthroplasty: the impact of obesity. Hip Int. 2014;24(3):263-269.
46.
TsukadaSWakuiM. Decreased accuracy of acetabular cup placement for imageless navigation in obese patients. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(6):758-763.
