Effect of Body Mass Index on Digital Templating for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Junior surgeon learning curve for performing digital planning of a first-line uncemented total hip prothesis

PURPOSE

Preoperative digital planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA) anticipates difficulties while increasing implant survival. The objective was to establish the learning curve to produce a reliable and reproducible preoperative planning for THA. We hypothesize that a learning curve exists for planning, and we want to determine the number of procedures required to accomplish it.

METHODS

This prospective study included patients for THA from 02/11/2019 to 01/11/2022. Ten junior (Juniors) and senior surgeons (Seniors) had received dedicated training in the use of the software. Modeling was done blindly by Juniors and Senior before surgery on a standardized front pelvis X-ray (mediCAD 2D Classic Hospital software). Statistical analyses to establish the learning curve were done to compare the Juniors and Seniors.

RESULTS

60% of the Juniors achieved competence after 31.5 ± 12.9 [14-54] planning sessions for the acetabular implant, and 80% after 30.3 ± 8.3 [17-40] planning sessions for the femoral implant. Femoral neck size was achieved by all ten Juniors after 23.1 ± 6.8 [17-38] planning. The offset was correctly restored on the plan by 30% of the Juniors after 33.5 ± 11.6 [18-46] planning.

CONCLUSION

There is a learning curve for 2D planning of uncemented THA. The different planning items seem to have different learning curves. Compared to Seniors, the completion of 75 planning sessions is not sufficient in totality. The competence of the Juniors for the acetabular implant, the length of the neck and the size of the femoral stem are mostly acquired before 75 sessions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective study-Level II.

Accuracy of two-dimensional digital planning in uncemented primary hip arthroplasty: monocentric analysis of eight hundred implants

PURPOSE

In the last decades, there has been a refinement in total hip arthroplasty, which allowed surgeons to achieve the highest performance and better patient outcomes. Preoperative planning in primary hip arthroplasty is an essential step that guides the surgeon in restoring the anatomy and biomechanics of the joint. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the 2D digital planning, considering cup sizing, stem sizing, and limb length discrepancy. Additionally, we conducted a multivariable analysis of demographic data and comorbidities to find factors influencing preoperative planning.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the planning accuracy in 800 consecutive uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty. We compared the preoperatively planned total hip arthroplasty with postoperative results regarding the planned component size, the implanted size, and the lower limb length restoration. Therefore, we investigated factors influencing planning accuracy: overweight and obesity, sex, age, past medical history, comorbidities, and implant design. All the surgeries were performed in the posterolateral approach by one expert surgeon who did the preoperative planning. The preoperative planning was determined to be (a) exact if the planned and the implanted components were the same size and (b) accurate if exact ± one size. The restoration of postoperative limb length discrepancy was classified into three groups: ± 3 mm, ± 5 mm, and ± 10 mm. This assessment was performed through a digital method 2D based on a standard hip X-ray.

RESULTS

This court of 800 implants showed that planning was exact in 60% of the cups and 44% of the stems and was accurate in 94% of the cups and 80% of the stems. The postoperative limb length discrepancy was ± 3 mm in 91% and ± 5 mm in 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed preoperative 2D digital planning great precision and reliability, and we demonstrated that it was accurate in 94% of the cups and 80% of the stems. Therefore, the preoperative limb length discrepancy analysis was essential to guarantee the recovery of the operated limb's correct length.

Risk factors for templating mismatch of uncemented stems in bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture

Preoperative templating needs to be precise to optimize hip arthroplasty outcomes. Unexpected implant mismatches can occur despite meticulous planning. We investigated the risk factors for oversized and undersized stem mismatch during uncemented hemiarthroplasty using a double-tapered wedge rectangular stem for femoral neck fracture. Out of 154 consecutive patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture, 104 patients were divided into three groups: (1) oversized (n = 17; 16.3%), (2) matched (n = 80; 76.9%), and (3) undersized stem group (n = 7; 6.7%). A smaller femoral head offset (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.81-0.98, P = 0.017), smaller isthmus diameter (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35-0.92, P = 0.021), and smaller canal flare index (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.04-0.98, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with oversized stem insertion, while older age (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.01-1.39, P = 0.037) was associated with undersized stem insertion in logistic regression. In conclusion, when performing hemiarthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture with a double-tapered wedge rectangular stem, surgeons must pay close attention to proximal femoral geometry and patient age during preoperative planning to avoid stem mismatch.

Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) show inconsistent findings regarding planning adherence in digital templating. The purpose of this study is to evaluate any difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and an anterolateral MIS approach (AL MIS) in cementless short stem THA.

METHODS

A single surgeon series of 222 THAs in 208 patients with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup were screened for inclusion. A total of 118 THAs were implanted via the DAA and 72 THAs via the AL MIS were included. The planning adherence for the offset option, stem size and the acetabular cup were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Planning adherence for cup size (perfect match: p = 0.763; ± 1 size: p = 0.124), offset option (0.125) and stem size (perfect match: p = 0.275; ± 1 size: p = 0.552) did not show any statistical significance. Preoperative diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in AL MIS approach (OR 6.045; CI 1.153-31.696) or mild hip dysplasia in the general cohort poses (OR 11.789; CI 1.386-100.293) a significant risk for inadequate prediction of the offset option.

CONCLUSION

digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches.

CONCLUSION

Digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches.

Accuracy of Total Hip Arthroplasty Templating Using Set Calibration Magnifications

Background Templating for total hip arthroplasty has been adopted over recent decades as a reliable and accurate method for pre-operative planning. The use of calibration markers for this process provides a recognised benefit at the expense of cost, availability and error. Many surgeons use a set magnification of 118% to account for calibration errors when templating total hip arthroplasty. This study aims to assess the accuracy of templating with standardised magnifications and assess the effect of BMI on templating accuracy. Materials and methods A retrospective analysis was performed using a single-surgeon series of 119 consecutive total hip arthroplasties. Anteroposterior radiographs were taken pre- or post-operatively without calibration hardware. Pre-operatively, the total hip arthroplasty was templated on TraumaCad (BrainLab Inc, Westchester, IL) using either 118% or 119% calibration magnification. Post-operative magnification was calibrated using the known femoral head diameter. Templated and implanted prostheses were compared for size. Results At 118%, 61.1% of cups matched those templated with 96.3% of cups within two sizes. At 119%, 52.5% of cups used matched their templates with 100% within two sizes. There was no significant difference between 118% and 119% cup size prediction (p=0.49). A trend was noticed in increasing magnification error with increasing BMI. However, BMI had no significant effect on the accuracy of templating cup size within two cup sizes (p=0.58). Conclusion. Templating acetabular cups using a set magnification of 118% or 119% yields accurate results and provides a reliable method to template without calibration equipment. Whilst BMI can affect magnification error, this has no significant effect on the accuracy of implanted cups and stems within two sizes.

KingMark's dual-marker versus a conventional single-marker templating system: is there a difference in accuracy of predicting final implant sizes and leg lengths?

AIMS

Pre-operative templating for total hip replacement (THR) surgery leads to more accurate implant sizing and positioning. This study aimed to compare the KingMark™ dual-marker system for magnification calibration to the current gold standard single-marker system in accuracy of predicting implant size and restoration of leg length post-operatively.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patients who had primary THR surgery from 2013 to 2019 by a single surgeon. Patients were in two cohorts whose operations were completed at separate healthcare facilities. Patients in the first cohort had pre-operative templating using the KingMark system; patients in the second cohort had templating using a single-marker. For all patients, pre-operative radiographs were reviewed; predicted implants noted; and leg length discrepancies calculated. These were compared to post-operative data. We then tested the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the templating methods for prediction accuracy of implant size and achieving restoration of leg length.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients were included in the KingMark cohort, and 104 were included in the single-marker cohort. In the KingMark cohort, 83.5% of patients had implantation of a cup within one size of that predicted, compared to 71.2% of the single-marker cohort. This superiority was statistically significant. There was a greater proportion of exact cup size predictions in the KingMark cohort, but this was not statistically significant. We did not find any significant difference between the cohorts for stem size, or stem placement, or reduction of leg length discrepancy.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated statistically significant superiority of the KingMark over a single-marker templating system for predicting cup size in primary THR surgery. For post-operative restoration of leg length, our study did not show any advantage of KingMark templating compared to single-marker templating.

Evaluation of a stepped, fixed-height magnification marker stand for use with a 100-mm marker in implant sizing prediction in 52 total hip replacement procedures in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a 100-millimeter marker placed on a stepped, fixed-height magnification marker stand to measure radiographic magnification on accuracy of implant size prediction when used for canine total hip replacement (THR) implant size selection.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

ANIMALS

Fifty-two hips in 45 dogs.

METHODS

This study evaluated 52 consecutive canine total hip replacement surgery pre-planning procedures involving 45 dogs with 7 undergoing staged bilateral THRs. Data collected included demographic information, measured radiographic magnification for magnification recalibration, implant size prediction of the cups (52) and the stems (52) based on digital templates superimposed on digital radiographs, and the actual implant sizes used during surgery.

RESULTS

Use of the magnification marker stand (MMS) and template application system resulted in an accurate prediction of implant size of 98/104 implants (94.2%) implants.

CONCLUSION

A 100-mm marker placed on a magnification marker stand was a viable method to measure and recalibrate for magnification on digital radiographs during the template process to predict the THR implant sizes that should be available when the surgery begins.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This stepped calibration marker stand is helpful in determination of an accurate preoperative THR implant size prediction, lowering implant stock thresholds, operating time, and associated complications. Additionally, the radiographic documentation of the marker's step height allows for indefinite confirmation of the magnification marker height used and for accurate repeatability for all follow-up imaging examinations and contralateral procedure planning.

Accuracy of digital templating of uncemented total hip arthroplasty at a certified arthroplasty center: a retrospective comparative study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the accuracy of preoperative digital templating for total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a certified arthroplasty center (EndoCert EPZmax).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study design, we analysed 620 uncemented primary THAs for templating accuracy by comparing the preoperatively planned THA component size and the implanted size as documented by the surgeon. Templating was determined to be a) exact if the planned and the implanted component were the same size and b) accurate if they were exact ± one size. Moreover, we investigated factors that potentially influence templating accuracy: overweight and obesity (WHO criteria), sex, implant design, surgeon experience, preoperative diagnosis. Digital templating was done with MediCAD software. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Templating was exact in 52% of stems and 51% of cups and was accurate in 90% of the stems and 85% of the cups. Regarding the factors potentially influencing templating accuracy, the type of cup implant had a significant influence (p = 0.016). Moreover, greater accuracy of stem templating was achieved in female patients (p = 0.004). No such effect was determined for the other factors investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that preoperative 2D templating is accurate in 90% of the stems and 85% of the cups. Greater accuracy may be achieved in female patients. In addition to gender, the type of implant used may influence planning accuracy as well. Surgeon experience, BMI and preoperative diagnosis did not influence templating accuracy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (retrospective comparative study with prospective cohort).

Digital templating for the implantation of a curved short hip stem with an anterolateral MIS approach shows gender differences in digital templating

PURPOSE

Digital templating shows reliable accuracy for straight stem systems. In recent years, the implantation of short stems through minimally invasive approaches has gained more popularity. Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) show the risk of undersizing femoral components. Therefore, we questioned the planning adherence for a curved short stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup implanted through an anterolateral MIS approach.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 964 hips (index surgery between 2014 and 2019) with Fitmore^® curved short stem and Allofit/-S^® acetabular cup (both ZimmerBiomet Inc, Warsaw, IN) were included. Preoperative digital templating was conducted anterior-posterior (AP) digital radiographs of the hip using mediCAD^® version 5.1 (Hectec GmbH, Altdorf, Germany). The templates of acetabular and femoral components (offset option and stem size) were retrospectively evaluated for general adherence, and according to sex, BMI and planner's experience.

RESULTS

Planning adherence for the exact offset option was 70.6 and 21.6% for exact offset option and stem size. Adherence for acetabular cup  ± 1 size was 74.8%. A significant difference between male and female patients for the offset option could be found (p = 0.03, z = -2983). In 22.5% of male patients, an offset option one size higher and in 12.3% of female patients an offset option one size smaller than templated was used intraoperatively CONCLUSION: Digital templating for the Fitmore^® stem in cementless THA with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach shows comparable planning adherence to the existing literature for this cementless short stem. However, a lower planning adherence was detected compared to conventional straight stem systems. In male patients, the femoral offset is frequently undersized and in female patients frequently oversized compared to the preoperative plan. Surgeons should be aware of this difficulty in digital templating for Fitmore^® hip stem.

Evaluation and Comparison of Self-Made and Commercial Calibration Markers for Radiographic Magnification Correction in Veterinary Digital Radiography

INTRODUCTION

 Magnification error is always present in radiography and calibration is necessary, if high accuracy is required in pre-surgical planning. The goal of this study was to verify the use of self-made markers and calibration techniques and to establish guidelines for magnification correction.

METHODS

 We evaluated and compared spherical and linear markers of different sizes with focus on practicability, accuracy and precision. Markers were placed on foam pads or attached to flexible arms.

RESULTS

 Vertical marker deviation of 1 cm from the anatomical reference point corresponded to ∼1% of magnification error in our setting. Marker placement along the horizontal plane showed no significant magnification in the periphery of the radiograph. All markers showed good accuracy and the commercial spherical marker with a flexible segment arm had the best results regarding practicability.

DISCUSSION

 Our study suggests that marker type is not solely responsible for usability and accuracy but also the type of fixation. In the absence of a calibration marker, calculation of the magnification factor using a measurement tape during radiography is equally reliable. Use of a fixed averaged calculated calibration factor showed poor agreement compared with the marker calibration, probably due to variability in size of the animals. In conclusion, if precision matters, use of a calibration marker, which could be purchased or self-made, is advised.

Pre-operative templating for total hip arthroplasty: How does radiographic technique and calibration marker placement affect image magnification?

INTRODUCTION

Pre-operative templating using digital radiography is an effective method of planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and requires a generalised fixed magnification factor (MF) or external calibration markers (ECM). The effect on image magnification when changing source-to-image distance (SID), object-to-image distance (OID) and different imaging conditions is not well described. This study aims to quantify the range of effects manipulation of radiographic parameters can have on image magnification across different body habitus and imaging conditions.

METHODS

A simple phantom study was performed. A 25 mm ECM was placed at eight different OID values along the anterior-posterior phantom plane at three different SID values and imaging conditions, and X-rays were obtained. On each radiograph, the ECM was measured using a line calliper tool by three radiographers and recorded. The MF was calculated and recorded.

RESULTS

The smallest observed image MF was 1.16, for an 8 cm OID, 120 cm SID with the ECM placed within the central ray and the X-ray detector in bucky underneath the X-ray table. The largest image MF was 1.40 for a 15 cm OID, 100 cm SID with the X-ray detector placed underneath an emergency department imaging trolley.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital pre-operative templating for THA relies on accurate radiographic positioning and is dependent of the patient body habitus, radiographic parameters and imaging conditions selected by the radiographer. The use of appropriately positioned ECMs - placed medially between the patient's internally rotated legs at the level of the greater trochanter, lowers the potential for magnification inaccuracies.

The accuracy of external calibration markers in digital templating using the double marker and single marker method: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Digital templating is an essential step in the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies have suggested that templating with the double marker method may be more accurate than a single marker method in the general population and in obese patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in the preoperative component selection between the King Mark calibration device and the conventional metal ball method. Additionally, we examined whether King Mark offered any advantage over the standard metal ball in the preoperative selection of component sizes for obese patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent preoperative digital templating for THA in our center from January 2014 to January 2016 with King Mark device and marker ball. We compared the preoperative template component size and offset with the intraoperative definite implant size. The accuracy was defined as the difference between preoperative and intraoperative component sizes. The overall accepted calibration was defined as an exact match ± one size. Patients were stratified into two cohorts according to the calibration method: standard marker ball technique and King Mark technique.

RESULTS

126 THA underwent digital calibration. 79 patients underwent a preoperative templating using the King Mark calibration device. 47 patients were templated using a conventional marker ball. The overall adequate preoperative planning of the acetabular cup (exact or ± 1 size match) in the King Mark group did not differ from the single marker method (74.7% and 74.5%, respectively, p = 0.979). No significant difference was noted in the overall accepted calibration of the femoral stem (exact or ± 1 size match) between the marker ball group and the King Mark group (58.2% and 70.2%, respectively, p = 0.179). The King Mark group showed a better preoperative planning for the stem's offset compared to the marker ball group (77.2% % and 61.7%, respectively, p = 0.062). For the obese patient cohort, no significant difference was noted between the King Mark group and the marker ball group in the exact prediction of the acetabular cup and the femoral stem, (p = 0.31 and p = 0.15, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no difference between the King Mark method and the conventional metal ball method in the ability to accurately predict component sizes. In the subgroup of obese patients, the King Mark technique offered no advantage for accurately predicting component sizes.

Radiographic Calibration With a Prosthetic Femoral Head Allows Accurate Preoperative Templating for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Templating for total hip arthroplasty requires proper radiographic calibration. One option for radiograph calibration is using a cobalt-chrome femoral head ball. The authors reviewed radiographs and clinical data for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. Radiographs were calibrated using a 28-mm cobalt-chrome femoral head ball. Agreements between templated and actual implant size were calculated. The templated acetabulum matched within one size of the actual acetabulum in 76.7% to 80.0% of cases. The templated femur matched within one size of the actual femur in 83.3% to 93.3% of cases. This technique is an attractive option when a standardized calibration marker is unavailable. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):e346-e349.].

Magnification of digital hip radiographs differs between clinical workplaces

Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty includes templating on anteroposterior radiographs. It is necessary to consider radiographic magnification in order to scale templates accurately. Studies dealing with hip templating report different values of radiographic magnification. It is not clear if the observed difference in magnification between the studies is caused by variability in studied groups, methodology or instrumentation. We hypothesize that there is a difference in magnification between clinical workplaces. Within this study, radiographic magnification was estimated on 337 radiographs of patients after total hip surgery from five orthopaedic departments in the Czech Republic. Magnification was determined for each patient as a ratio between diameter of implanted femoral head measured on radiogram and its true size. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in magnification between workplaces (F(4,332) = 132, p≤0.001). These results suggest that radiographic magnification depends on the workplace where it is taken or more precisely on radiographic device. It indicates potential limits in generalizability of results of studies dealing with preoperative planning accuracy to other institutions.