Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty

Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between the acetabular cup position and the risk of dislocation, wear and range of motion after total hip arthroplasty. The present study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the surgeon’s estimated position of the cup after freehand placement in total hip replacement. Peroperative estimated abduction and anteversion of 200 acetabular components (placed by three orthopaedic surgeons and nine residents) were compared with measured outcomes (according to Pradhan) on postoperative radiographs. Cups were placed in 49.7° (SD 6.7) of abduction and 16.0° (SD 8.1) of anteversion. Estimation of placement was 46.3° (SD 4.3) of abduction and 14.6° (SD 5.9) of anteversion. Of more interest is the fact that for the orthopaedic surgeons the mean inaccuracy of estimation was 4.1° (SD 3.9) for abduction and 5.2° (SD 4.5) for anteversion and for their residents this was respectively, 6.3° (SD 4.6) and 5.7° (SD 5.0). Significant differences were found between orthopaedic surgeons and residents for inaccuracy of estimation for abduction, not for anteversion. Body mass index, sex, (un)cemented fixation and surgical approach (anterolateral or posterolateral) were not significant factors. Based upon the inaccuracy of estimation, the group’s chance on future cup placement within Lewinnek’s safe zone (5–25° anteversion and 30–50° abduction) is 82.7 and 85.2% for anteversion and abduction separately. When both parameters are combined, the chance of accurate placement is only 70.5%. The chance of placement of the acetabular component within 5° of an intended position, for both abduction and anteversion is 21.5% this percentage decreases to just 2.9% when the tolerated error is 1°. There is a tendency to underestimate both abduction and anteversion. Orthopaedic surgeons are superior to their residents in estimating abduction of the acetabular component. The results of this study indicate that freehand placement of the acetabular component is not a reliable method

Effectiveness of computer-navigated minimally invasive total hip surgery compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe osteoarthrosis is the most common indication for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Minimally Invasive Total Hip Surgery (MIS) and computer-navigated surgery were introduced several years ago. However, the literature lacks well-designed studies that provide evidence of superiority of computer-navigated MIS over a conventional THA technique. Hence, the purpose of this study is to compare (cost)effectiveness of computer-navigated MIS with a conventional technique for THA. It is our hypothesis that computer-navigated MIS will lead to a quicker recovery during the early postoperative period (3 months), and to an outcome at least as good 6 months postoperatively. We also hypothesize that computer-navigated MIS leads to fewer perioperative complications and better prosthesis positioning. Furthermore, cost advantages of computer-navigated MIS over conventional THA technique are expected. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial will be executed. Patients between the ages of 18 and 75 admitted for primary cementless unilateral THA will be included. Patients will be stratified using the Charnley classification. They will be randomly allocated to have computer-navigated MIS or conventional THA technique. Measurements take place preoperatively, perioperatively, and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Degree of limping (gait analysis), self-reported functional status and health-related quality of life (questionnaires) will be assessed preoperatively as well as postoperatively. Perioperative complications will be registered. Radiographic evaluation of prosthesis positioning will take place 6 weeks postoperatively. An evaluation of costs within and outside the healthcare sector will focus on differences in costs between computer-navigated MIS and conventional THA technique. DISCUSSION: Based on studies performed so far, few objective data quantifying the risks and benefits of computer-navigated MIS are available. Therefore, this study has been designed to compare (cost) effectiveness of computer-navigated MIS with a conventional technique for THA. The results of this trial will be presented as soon as they become available

Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Both minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and computer-assisted surgery (CAS) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained popularity in recent years. We conducted a qualitative and systematic review to assess the effectiveness of MIS, CAS and computer-assisted MIS for THA. METHODS: An extensive computerised literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and OVIDSP was conducted. Both randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials on the effectiveness of MIS, CAS and computer-assisted MIS for THA were included. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Effect estimates were calculated and a best-evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Four high-quality and 14 medium-quality studies with MIS THA as study contrast, and three high-quality and four medium-quality studies with CAS THA as study contrast were included. No studies with computer-assisted MIS for THA as study contrast were identified. Strong evidence was found for a decrease in operative time and intraoperative blood loss for MIS THA, with no difference in complication rates and risk for acetabular outliers. Strong evidence exists that there is no difference in physical functioning, measured either by questionnaires or by gait analysis. Moderate evidence was found for a shorter length of hospital stay after MIS THA. Conflicting evidence was found for a positive effect of MIS THA on pain in the early postoperative period, but that effect diminished after three months postoperatively. Strong evidence was found for an increase in operative time for CAS THA, and limited evidence was found for a decrease in intraoperative blood loss. Furthermore, strong evidence was found for no difference in complication rates, as well as for a significantly lower risk for acetabular outliers. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that MIS THA is a safe surgical procedure, without increases in operative time, blood loss, operative complication rates and component malposition rates. However, the beneficial effect of MIS THA on functional recovery has to be proven. The results also indicate that CAS THA, though resulting in an increase in operative time, may have a positive effect on operative blood loss and operative complication rates. More importantly, the use of CAS results in better positioning of acetabular component of the prosthesis

Minimally invasive total knee replacement : techniques and results

In this review, we outlined the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee replacement (TKR) and described the different surgical approaches reported in the literature. Afterwards we went through the most recent studies assessing MIS TKR. Next, we searched for potential limitations of MIS knee replacement and tried to answer the following questions: Are there selective criteria and specific patient selection for MIS knee surgery? If there are, then what are they? After all, a discussion and conclusion completed this article. There is certainly room for MIS or at least less invasive surgery (LIS) for appropriate selected patients. Nonetheless, there are differences between approaches. Mini medial parapatellar is easy to master, quick to perform and potentially extendable, whereas mini subvastus and mini midvastus are trickier and require more caution related to risk of hematoma and VMO nerve damage. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of mini-incision surgery for TKR does not appear fully adequate for the procedure to be used without special arrangements for consent and for audit or continuing research. There is an argument that a sudden jump from standard TKR to MIS TKR, especially without computer assistance such as navigation, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) or robotic, may breach a surgeon's duty of care toward patients because it exposes patients to unnecessary risks. As a final point, more evidence is required on the long-term safety and efficacy of this procedure which will give objective shed light on real benefits of MIS TKR

Computer-assisted placement technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: improvement in accuracy?

Freehand positioning of the femoral drill guide is difficult during hip resurfacing and the surgeon is often unsure of the implant position achieved peroperatively. The purpose of this study was to find out whether, by using a navigation system, acetabular and femoral component positioning could be made easier and more precise. Eighteen patients operated on by the same surgeon were matched by sex, age, BMI, diagnosis and ASA score (nine patients with computer assistance, nine with the regular ancillary). Pre-operative planning was done on standard AP and axial radiographs with CT scan views for the computer-assisted operations. The final position of implants was evaluated by the same radiographs for all patients. The follow-up was at least 1 year. No difference between both groups in terms of femoral component position was observed (p > 0.05). There was also no difference in femoral notching. A trend for a better cup position was observed for the navigated hips, especially for cup anteversion. There was no additional operating time for the navigated hips. Hip navigation for resurfacing surgery may allow improved visualisation and hip implant positioning, but its advantage probably will be more obvious with mini-incisions than with regular incision surgery