Computer-assisted vs conventional mechanical jig technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Clinical accuracy and precision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty using computed tomography-based navigation

PURPOSE

To avoid malalignment of components during hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), we used a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system for guidance. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical accuracy and precision of HRA performed using the CT-based navigation systems.

METHODS

HRA was performed on 17 hips guided by the CT-based navigation systems. We measured cup alignment deviation, deviation of the stem position, and alignment from the plan by image matching between pre-operative and post-operative CT images.

RESULTS

Cup anteversion was within 5° of that in the plan in all cases. Cup inclination was within 5° of that in the plan in 82.4% and within 10° in all cases. The angular difference of the stem was within 5° in all cases, and the entry point of the stem was within 4 mm in all cases.

CONCLUSION

The CT-based navigation system for HRA guided accurate component placement according to the plan.

3D-printed Patient-specific Guides for Hip Arthroplasty

Surgeons and engineers constantly search for methods to improve the surgical positioning of implants used for joint arthroplasty. Rapid prototyping is being used to develop patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and has already been successfully translated into large-scale clinical use for knee arthroplasty. PSI has been used in shoulder arthroplasty; however, it is not yet known whether PSI provides improved accuracy and outcomes compared with conventional methods in either shoulder arthroplasty or knee arthroplasty. In the hip, PSI has been limited to the positioning of custom-manufactured implants and a small number of surgeons testing the emerging solutions from different manufacturers. Early results indicate consistent accurate positioning of implants with the use of PSI in hip arthroplasty but with added costs and uncertain effect on clinical outcomes.

CUSTOMIZED GUIDE FOR FEMORAL COMPONENT POSITIONING IN HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY

Objective:

To prove the accuracy of a customized guide developed according to our method.

Methods:

This customized guide was developed from a three-dimensional model of proximal femur reconstructed using computed tomography data. Based on the new technique, the position of the guide pin insertion was selected and adjusted using the reference of the anatomical femoral neck axis. The customized guide consists of a hemispheric covering designed to fit the posterior part of the femoral neck. The performance of the customized guide was tested in eight patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty. The stability of the customized guide was assessed by orthopedic surgeons. An intraoperative image intensifier was used to assess the accuracy.

Results:

The customized guide was stabilized with full contact and was fixed in place in all patients. The mean angular deviations in relation to the what was planned in anteroposterior and lateral hip radiographs were 0.5º ± 1.8º in valgus and 1.0º ± 2.4º in retroversion, respectively.

Conclusion:

From this pilot test, the authors suggest that the proposed technique could be applied as a customized guide to the positioning device for hip resurfacing arthroplasty with acceptable accuracy and user-friendly interface. Level of Evidence IV, Cases Series.

Effect of surgical experience on imageless computer-assisted femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing--a preclinical study

Background

The clinical outcome of hip resurfacing (HR) as a demanding surgical technique associated with a substantial learning curve depends on the position of the femoral component. The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of the level of surgical experience on computer-assisted imageless navigation concerning precision of femoral component positioning, notching, and oversizing rate, as well as operative time.

Methods

Three surgeons with different levels of experience in both HR and computer-assisted surgery (CAS) prepared the femoral heads of 54 synthetic femurs using the Durom^TM Hip Resurfacing (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) system. Each surgeon prepared a total of 18 proximal femurs using the Navitrack® system (ORTHOsoft Inc., Montreal, Canada) or the conventional free-hand Durom^TM K-wire positioning jig. The differences between planned and postoperative stem shaft angle (SSA) and anteversion angle in standardized x-rays were measured and the operative time, not including the time for calibrating the CAS-system, was documented. Notching was evaluated by the three surgeons in a randomized manner. Oversizing was determined by the difference of the preoperative determined cap and the cap size advised by the CAS-system.

Results

CAS significantly reduced the overall mean deviation between planned and postoperative SSA in comparison with the conventional procedure (mean ± SD, 1 ± 1.7° vs. 7.4 ± 4.4°, P <0.01) regardless of the surgeon’s level of experience. The incidence of either varus or valgus SSA deviations exceeding 5° were 1/27 for CAS and 15/27 for the conventional method, respectively (P <0.001), corresponding to a reduction by 97%. Using CAS, the rate of notching was reduced by 100%.

Conclusions

The accuracy of femoral HR component orientation is significantly increased by use of CAS regardless of the surgeon’s level of experience in our preclinical study. Thus, imageless computer-assisted navigation can be a valuable tool to improve implant positioning in HR for surgeons at any stage of their learning curve.

Evaluation of a patient specific femoral alignment guide for hip resurfacing

A novel alternative to conventional instrumentation for femoral component insertion in hip resurfacing is a patient specific, computed tomography based femoral alignment guide. A benchside study using cadaveric femora was performed comparing a custom alignment guide to conventional instrumentation and computer navigation. A clinical series of twenty-five hip resurfacings utilizing a custom alignment guide was conducted by three surgeons experienced in hip resurfacing. Using cadaveric femora, the custom guide was comparable to conventional instrumentation with computer navigation proving superior to both. Clinical femoral component alignment accuracy was 3.7° and measured within ± 5° of plan in 20 of 24 cases. Patient specific femoral alignment guides provide a satisfactory level of accuracy and may be a better alternative to conventional instrumentation for initial femoral guidewire placement in hip resurfacing.

The First SICOT Oral Presentation Award 2011: imageless computer-assisted femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing: a prospective randomised trial

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of imageless computer-assisted surgery (CAS) on the accuracy of positioning of the femoral component and on the short-term clinical outcome in hip resurfacing (HR) using a randomised prospective design.

METHODS

A total of 75 consecutive patients undergoing HR were randomly allocated to CAS and conventional implantation, respectively. Preoperatively and six months post-operatively standardised pelvic anteroposterior X-ray images, the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Harris Hip Score and the EQ-5D utility index were evaluated in a blinded manner. The primary end point of the study was a post-operative femoral component malpositioning in five degrees or more either varus or valgus absolute deviation from the planned stem shaft angle.

RESULTS

Patient demographics and algofunctional scores did not differ between the CAS and conventional implantation samples. Using CAS fewer femoral components were positioned in five or more degrees absolute deviation (4/37 vs 12/38, Fisher's exact p = 0.047; 95 % confidence interval for the primary end point's incidence difference: +3 %; +39 %); the respective incidences of five or more degrees of varus deviation were 0/37 vs 5/38. One conversion to a stemmed prosthesis (CAS group) was performed for periprosthetic femoral neck fracture. Radiological signs of superolateral femoral neck/implant impingement were observed in two cases (one CAS-based and one conventional implantation).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of femoral HR component positioning was significantly improved using CAS. However, one major complication necessitated early revision in the CAS group at six months of observation. Apart from that adverse event no inter-group differences were observed for the short-term clinical outcome. Future studies need to address the clinical long-term relevance of CAS in HR.

Computer navigation experience in hip resurfacing improves femoral component alignment using a conventional jig

BACKGROUND

The use of computer navigation has been shown to improve the accuracy of femoral component placement compared to conventional instrumentation in hip resurfacing. Whether exposure to computer navigation improves accuracy when the procedure is subsequently performed with conventional instrumentation without navigation has not been explored. We examined whether femoral component alignment utilizing a conventional jig improves following experience with the use of imageless computer navigation for hip resurfacing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2004 and December 2008, 213 consecutive hip resurfacings were performed by a single surgeon. The first 17 (Cohort 1) and the last 9 (Cohort 2) hip resurfacings were performed using a conventional guidewire alignment jig. In 187 cases, the femoral component was implanted using the imageless computer navigation. Cohorts 1 and 2 were compared for femoral component alignment accuracy.

RESULTS

All components in Cohort 2 achieved the position determined by the preoperative plan. The mean deviation of the stem-shaft angle (SSA) from the preoperatively planned target position was 2.2° in Cohort 2 and 5.6° in Cohort 1 (P = 0.01). Four implants in Cohort 1 were positioned at least 10° varus compared to the target SSA position and another four were retroverted.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral component placement utilizing conventional instrumentation may be more accurate following experience using imageless computer navigation.

Computer navigation vs conventional mechanical jig technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a meta-analysis based on 7 studies

The studies on the accuracy of femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the help of computer-assisted navigation were not consistent. This study aims to assess at the functional outcomes after computer navigation in hip resurfacing arthroplasty by systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing the data, which were searched up to December 2011 in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MetaMed, EBSCO HOST, and the Web site of Google scholar. Totally, 197 articles about hip resurfacing arthroplasty were collected; finally, 7 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis (520 patients with 555 hip resurfacing arthroplasty). The odds ratio for the number of outliers was 0.155 (95% confidence interval, 0.048-0.498; P < .003). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that the computer-assisted navigation system makes the femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty easier and more precise.

Accuracy of navigation in hip resurfacing with different surgeons and varying anatomy

The accuracy of a commercial imageless navigation system for hip resurfacing and its reproducibility among different surgeons and for varying femoral anatomy was tested by comparing conventional and navigated implantation of the femoral component on different sawbones in a hip simulator. The position of the component was measured on postoperative radiographs. Variance for varus/valgus alignment and anteversion was higher for conventional implantation. Among the three surgeons, operation time, chosen implant size and anteversion were significantly different for conventional implantation but not for the navigated method. Using navigation, no difference was found for normal and abnormal anatomy. Values obtained with the navigation system were consistent with those measured on radiographs. Navigation appeared to be accurate and helped to reduce outliers. This was true for the three different surgeons and in varying anatomical situations.

Metal-on-metal surface replacement: a triumph of hope over reason: affirms

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing offers some potential for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the young patient. However, short- and intermediate-term results of the currently available implants have failed to demonstrate advantage over conventional THA. The risks of femoral neck fracture or avascular necrosis have been disappointing early limitations of the procedure. The Australian Joint Registry reports a 5-year revision rate of all hip resurfacings of 3.8%, compared with conventional THAs at 2.8%, and a 9-year cumulative revision rate of 7.2% for hip resurfacings. Recent reports of femoral neck erosion and pseudotumors associated with resurfacing have raised concern about the survivorship of the procedure in some patients. Recently, the British Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency issued an alert over adverse reactions associated with metal-on-metal THAs, with particular concern expressed about hip resurfacings. Acetabular bone stock may not be conserved when large-diameter femoral head components are used, depending on the surgical technique and implant design. In hip resurfacing, the minimum diameter femoral component avoids notching of the femoral neck; thus, larger diameter acetabular components may be necessary to accommodate the femoral component. Hip resurfacing is contraindicated in cases of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, especially with cysts >1 cm in diameter, with severe slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and in some posttraumatic arthroses; furthermore, the biomechanics of the resurfaced hip appear to be less reliably restored than with conventional THA. The hypothesis that resurfacing is a more conservative procedure than conventional THA remains unproven at this time. Given the documented intermediate failure rates of resurfacing, metal-on-polyethylene is the more successful implant choice.

Avoiding short-term femoral neck fracture with imageless computer navigation for hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

Femoral neck fracture in hip resurfacing has been attributed to technical error during femoral head preparation. In the absence of fracture, several radiographic findings have been speculated to increase the risk of femoral component failure.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We examined whether (1) the use of navigation to reduce technical errors during femoral head preparation reduces the incidence of femoral neck fractures in the short-term followup period; and (2) alignment of the femoral component with the use of computer navigation reduces the incidence of femoral neck thinning, femoral stem radiolucencies, and stem migration.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the first 100 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings performed in 94 prospectively followed patients between October 2005 and November 2007. We examined all radiographs on last followup. Eighty-six patients of the 94 patients had a minimum followup of 2 years (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2-4.1 years).

RESULTS

There were no cases of femoral neck notching, varus femoral component alignment, or femoral neck fractures in the series. Neck thinning of greater than 10% was observed in three patients and perimetaphyseal stem lucencies were noted in 10 patients. In three patients, the metaphyseal stem showed varus migration relative to the postoperative stem-shaft angle at latest followup. There was one revision to a total hip arthroplasty for deep sepsis. The overall survivorship at 4 years was 99%.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of imageless computer navigation to reduce technical errors in hip resurfacing may reduce the incidence of femoral neck fracture in the short-term. However, neck thinning, stem radiolucencies, and stem migration remain radiographic sequelae of hip resurfacing despite the use of navigation for placement of the femoral component.

Intraoperative radiographs for placing acetabular components in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Various clinical and biomechanical studies suggest certain acetabular positions may be associated with higher wear and failure rates in modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties. However, there are no widely available, reliable, and cost-effective surgical techniques that ensure surgeons are able to place an acetabular component within the safe range of inclination angles after hip resurfacing surgeries.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We investigated the accuracy of intraoperative radiographs to determine the acetabular inclination angle in resurfacing arthroplasty procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study group included the first 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed after we started routinely checking the intraoperative acetabular inclination angles. The acetabular component was repositioned if the intraoperative acetabular inclination angle was out of the target range of 30° to 50°. The control group included the previous 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed without the benefit of intraoperative radiographs. A posterior minimally invasive surgical approach was used in both groups. Demographics and diagnoses were similar in both groups.

RESULTS

The average (± SD) difference between the intraoperative and 6-week radiographs was 2.7° ± 2.5°. The acetabular inclination angles at 6-week followup were within the targeted range more frequently in the study group than in the control group (outliers: 4% versus 29%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a single intraoperative radiograph is a quick, reliable, and cost-effective method for ensuring the acetabular inclination angle is within the targeted range.

Cortical strut allograft as an adjunct to plate fixation for periprosthetic fractures of the femur

The use of cortical strut allografts in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures remain controversial. Complications such as infection and the potential transmission of disease remain concerns. A retrospective review at a tertiary-care hospital was completed of 21 patients who had sustained a periprosthetic femoral fracture and who were treated using a plate and a deep-frozen cortical strut allograft, between 1996 and 2007. The average age at the time of surgery was 80.3 years old and included 16 women and 5 men. Three patients were lost to follow-up and four died within a few weeks of discharge. The remaining 14 patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years. Fracture union was observed in 13 patients, and integration of the graft occurred in 12 patients. One of the 14 patients developed a deep infection with Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus, with a satisfactory outcome after surgical debridement and antibiotic treatment. There were no cases of fixation failure or plate rupture. At the final evaluation, the mean EQ-5D VAS score was 64 (ranging from 40-90 points) and the mean EQ-5D health state index adapted to Spanish value sets was 0.57. The mean Oxford Hip Score was 31.2. The results support the use of cortical allograft for these fractures to increase the likelihood of fracture healing and to improve the bone stock. We consider that cortical strut grafting is specially indicated for B1 and C fractures in which decreased bone density is present.

A comparison of conventional guidewire alignment jigs with imageless computer navigation in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Correct positioning of the initial femoral guidewire is vital in order to prepare the femoral head properly for hip resurfacing. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the accuracy and precision of the placement of the initial femoral guidewire with use of conventional alignment jigs and to compare the results with those of imageless computer navigation.

METHODS

Five commercially available jigs (two lateral pin jigs, two neck centering jigs, and one head planing jig) were obtained. Four surgeons used each jig and navigation three times to insert a guidewire in 10 degrees of relative valgus and neutral version into individual synthetic femora. A single surgeon then used each jig three times to align the initial guidewire in 10 degrees of relative valgus and neutral version in each of ten human cadaver femora. Radiographs of the synthetic and human femora were made to assess and compare guidewire inclination and version between conventional instrumentation and navigation.

RESULTS

Navigation provided ranges of error in the coronal guidewire alignment of up to eight times less than the conventional jigs, but both methods provided similar ranges of error for version. In both arms of the study, there were significant differences in coronal alignment accuracy between the two neck centering jigs. Next to navigation, one lateral pin jig provided the most accurate coronal placement of the initial guidewire whereas one neck centering jig provided the most precise coronal placement of the guidewire. Navigation was similar to conventional jigs in terms of the accuracy and precision of guidewire version.

CONCLUSIONS

In hip resurfacing arthroplasty, the choice of a femoral alignment device may influence the accuracy and precision of guidewire insertion, ultimately impacting femoral component placement. Imageless computer navigation can facilitate accurate and precise coronal alignment of the initial femoral guidewire, superior to that of conventional instrumentation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study may aid surgeons in the selection of alignment instruments for placement of the initial femoral guidewire during hip resurfacing.

[Imageless computer navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty]

OBJECTIVE

Precise implantation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty by imageless computer navigation. Hence a malalignment of the femoral component, leading to early loss of the implant, can safely be avoided.

INDICATIONS

Coxarthrosis in patients with normal bone mineral density; only minor deformity of the femoral head that enables milling around the femoral neck without notching.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Osteoporosis; large necrosis of the femoral head; metal allergy; small acetabular seat and corresponding wide femoral neck, leading to needless acetabular bone loss; pregnancy, lactation.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Hip joint exposure by a standard surgical approach, bicortical placement of a Schanz screw for the navigation array in the lesser trochanter. Referencing of the epicondyles, the four planes around the femoral neck and head by use of the navigation pointer. Planning of the desired implant position on the touchscreen of the navigation device; a guide wire is inserted into the femoral head and neck using the navigated drill guide; navigated depth drilling is performed. The femoral head is milled using the standard instruments. The acetabular bone stock is prepared with the conventional instrumentation; high-viscosity cement is finger-packed on the reamed head and the femoral component is inserted. Hammer blows should be avoided to prevent microfractures. Verification of the implant position by the navigation device; displacement of the Schanz screw; joint reposition and closure of the wound.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Standard postoperative management after hip arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The comparison of 40 navigated and 32 conventionally implanted ASR prostheses resulted in a significant reduction of outliers by use of computer navigation (navigated procedures: one outlier, conventional procedure: nine outliers; p<0.001). Accuracy of the navigation device was tested by analysis of planned and verified implant position: CCD angle accuracy was 1 degrees , antetorsion accuracy was 1 degrees , and offset accuracy was 1.5 mm. An ongoing computed tomography-based anatomic study proved a varus-valgus accuracy of the navigation device of 1 degrees .

A custom-made guide-wire positioning device for hip surface replacement arthroplasty: description and first results

Background

Hip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) can be an alternative for total hip arthroplasty. The short and long-term outcome of hip surface replacement arthroplasty mainly relies on the optimal size and position of the femoral component. This can be defined before surgery with pre-operative templating. Reproducing the optimal, templated femoral implant position during surgery relies on guide wire positioning devices in combination with visual inspection and experience of the surgeon. Another method of transferring the templated position into surgery is by navigation or Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS). Though CAS is documented to increase accurate placement particularly in case of normal hip anatomy, it requires bulky equipment that is not readily available in each centre.

Methods

A custom made neck jig device is presented as well as the results of a pilot study.

The device is produced based on data pre-operatively acquired with CT-scan. The position of the guide wire is chosen as the anatomical axis of the femoral neck. Adjustments to the design of the jig are made based on the orthopedic surgeon's recommendations for the drill direction. The SRA jig is designed as a slightly more-than-hemispherical cage to fit the anterior part of the femoral head. The cage is connected to an anterior neck support. Four knifes are attached on the central arch of the cage. A drill guide cylinder is attached to the cage, thus allowing guide wire positioning as pre-operatively planned.

Custom made devices were tested in 5 patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty. The orthopedic surgeons reported the practical aspects of the use of the neck-jig device. The retrieved femoral heads were analyzed to assess the achieved drill place in mm deviation from the predefined location and orientation compared to the predefined orientation.

Results

The orthopedic surgeons rated the passive stability, full contact with neck portion of the jig and knife contact with femoral head, positive. There were no guide failures. The jig unique position and the number of steps required to put the guide in place were rated 1, while the complexity to put the guide into place was rated 1-2. In all five cases the guide wire was accurately positioned. Maximum angular deviation was 2.9° and maximum distance between insertion points was 2.1 mm.

Conclusions

Pilot testing of a custom made jig for use during SRA indicated that the device was (1) successfully applied and user friendly and (2) allowed for accurate guide wire placement according to the preoperative plan.

Imageless computer navigation without pre-operative templating may lead to malpreparation of the femoral head in hip resurfacing

The computed neck-shaft angle and the size of the femoral component were recorded in 100 consecutive hip resurfacings using imageless computer-navigation and compared with the angle measured before operation and with actual component implanted. The reliability of the registration was further analysed using ten cadaver femora. The mean absolute difference between the measured and navigated neck-shaft angle was 16.3° (0° to 52°). Navigation underestimated the measured neck-shaft angle in 38 patients and the correct implant size in 11. Registration of the cadaver femora tended to overestimate the correct implant size and provided a low level of repeatability in computing the neck-shaft angle.

Prudent pre-operative planning is advisable for use in conjunction with imageless navigation since misleading information may be registered intraoperatively, which could lead to inappropriate sizing and positioning of the femoral component in hip resurfacing.

Imageless computer navigation for placement of the femoral component in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip

We have investigated the accuracy of placement of the femoral component using imageless navigation in 100 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings. Pre-operative templating determined the native neck-shaft angle and planned stem-shaft angle of the implant. The latter were verified post-operatively using digital anteroposterior unilateral radiographs of the hip. The mean neck-shaft angle determined before operation was 132.7 degrees (118 degrees to 160 degrees ). The mean planned stem-shaft angle was a relative valgus alignment of 9.7 degrees (SD 2.6). The stem-shaft angle after operation differed from that planned by a mean of 2.8 degrees (SD 2.0) and in 86% of cases the final angle measured within +/- 5 degrees of that planned. We had no instances of notching of the neck or varus alignment of the implant in our series. A learning curve was observed in the time taken for navigation, but not for accurate placement of the implant. Navigation in hip resurfacing may afford the surgeon a reliable and accurate method of placement of the femoral component.