Intraoperative pelvic movement is associated with the body mass index in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty in the supine position

Accuracy of portable navigation during THA in patients with severe developmental dysplasia of hip

INTRODUCTION

Correct cup placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is considerably difficult. This study aimed to analyze the orientation accuracy of cup insertion during THA using a portable navigation system in patients with DDH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 64 patients who underwent THA using infrared stereo camera-matching portable navigation. Patients underwent THA via the anterolateral approach in the lateral decubitus position. Navigation records for intraoperative cup angles, postoperative cup angles measured on computed tomography (CT) images, and cup angle measurement differences were measured and compared between patients with non-DDH/mild DDH and severe DDH. Furthermore, the predictive factors for outliers of accurate acetabular cup placement were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average measurement absolute abduction differences (postoperative CT-navigation record) were 3.9 ± 3.5° (severe DDH) and 3.3 ± 2.6° (non-DDH/ mild DDH), and the anteversion differences were 4.7 ± 3.4° (severe DDH) and 2.3 ± 2.1° (non-DDH/ mild DDH). The anteversion difference was different between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that the navigation difference (absolute difference in anteversion between postoperative CT and navigation records of > 5°) was significantly associated with severe DDH (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3; p = 0.049, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-11.1) and posterior pelvic tilt (OR: 1.1; p = 0.042, 95% CI: 1.0-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe DDH, it is important to pay close attention during THA using portable navigation. However, the average difference was < 5º even in patients with severe DDH, and the accuracy may be acceptable in a clinical setting when the cost is considered.

Does a Commercially Available Augmented Reality-based Portable Hip Navigation System Improve Cup Positioning During THA Compared With the Conventional Technique? A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Portable hip navigation systems have been developed to combine the accuracy of cup positioning by large console navigation systems with the ease of use and convenience of conventional surgical techniques. Although a novel augmented reality-based portable hip navigation system using a smartphone (AR navigation) has become available recently, no studies, to our knowledge, have compared commercially available AR navigation with the conventional technique. Additionally, no studies, except for those from designer-surgeon series, have demonstrated the results of AR navigation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does intraoperative use of commercially available AR navigation improve cup positioning compared with the conventional technique? (2) Are operative factors, clinical scores, and postoperative course different between the two groups?

METHODS

In this randomized trial, 72 patients undergoing THA were randomly assigned to undergo either commercially available AR navigation or a conventional technique for cup placement. All patients received the same cementless acetabular cups through a posterior approach in the lateral decubitus position. The primary outcome of the present study was cup positioning, including the absolute differences between the intended target and angle achieved, as well as the number of cups inside the Lewinnek safe zone. Our target cup position was 40° abduction and 20° anteversion. Secondary outcomes were operative factors, between-group difference in improvement in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and the postoperative course, including the operative time (between the start of the surgical approach and skin closure), procedure time (between the first incision and skin closure, including the time to insert pins, registration, and transfer and redrape patients in the navigation group), time taken to insert pins and complete registration in the navigation group, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and reoperations. The minimum follow-up period was 6 months, because data regarding the primary outcome-cup positioning-were collected within 1 week after surgery. The between-group difference in improvement in HOOS, which was the secondary outcome, was much lower than the minimum clinically important difference for the HOOS. No patients in either group were lost to follow-up, and there was no crossover (the randomized treatment was performed in all patients, so there was no difference between an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis).

RESULTS

The use of the commercially available AR navigation slightly improved cup positioning compared with the conventional technique in terms of the absolute difference between the desired and achieved amounts of cup abduction and anteversion (which we defined as "absolute differences"; median 1° [IQR 0° to 4.0°] versus median 5° [IQR 3.0° to 7.5°], difference of medians 4°; p < 0.001 and median 2° [IQR 1.9° to 3.7°] versus median 5° [IQR 3.2° to 9.7°], difference of medians 2°; p = 0.001). A higher proportion of cups were placed inside the Lewinnek safe zone in the navigation group than in the control group (94% [34 of 36] compared with 64% [23 of 36]; p < 0.001). Median operative times were not different between the two groups (58 minutes [IQR 49 to 72 minutes] versus 57 minutes [IQR 49 to 69 minutes], difference of medians 1 minute; p = 0.99). The median procedure time was longer in the navigation group (95 minutes [IQR 84 to 109 minutes] versus 57 minutes [IQR 49 to 69 minutes], difference of medians 38 minutes; p < 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in improvement in HOOS (27 ± 17 versus 28 ± 19, mean difference -1 [95% CI -9.5 to 7.4]; p = 0.81). In the navigation group, no complications occurred in the pin sites; however, one anterior dislocation occurred. In the conventional group, one hip underwent reoperation because of a deep infection.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of commercially available AR navigation improved cup positioning in THA, the improvement in clinical scores and postoperative complication rates were not different between the two groups, and the overall magnitude of the difference in accuracy was small. Future studies will need to determine whether the improvement in the percentage of hips inside the Lewinnek safe zone results in differences in late dislocation or polyethylene wear, and whether such benefits-if any-justify the added costs and surgical time. Until or unless more compelling evidence in favor of the new system emerges, we recommend against widespread use of the system in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level Ⅱ, therapeutic study.

Accuracy comparison of cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty using Hip Align and AR-Hip in the supine position

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of acetabular cup positioning between the accelerometer-based navigation system and the augmented reality-based navigation system during THA in the supine position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 66 patients (70 hips) who underwent THA using two types of portable navigation system, Hip Align or AR-Hip, in the spine position. The absolute difference between the intraoperative navigation record and postoperative measurement using computed tomography data was evaluated. Preoperative clinical factors that decreased the accuracy of cup positioning by ≥ 3° were analyzed via multiple logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The average absolute error of inclination was 2.8 ± 2.6° in Hip Align and 2.7 ± 1.8° in AR-Hip, and absolute anteversion error was 2.5 ± 2.0° in Hip Align and 2.6 ± 2.2° in AR-Hip, and there was no significantly different between the two navigation systems. There was a significant association between the absolute measurement error (≥ 3°) of cup inclination and patients' BMI in the Hip Align group [odds ratio (OR) 1.350; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.035-1.760; p = 0.027], but not in the AR-Hip group.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the acetabular cup positioning between the Hip Align and AR-Hip showed no difference during THA in the spine position. The high BMI could have negative influence on the accuracy of cup positioning in THA using Hip Align, thus AR-Hip could be designable for obesity patients.

Intraoperative Pelvic Tilt and Axial Rotation During Total Hip Arthroplasty Through the Direct Anterior Approach is Affected by the Acetabular Retractor and Cup Impactor

Background

Intraoperative pelvic motion during total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the supine position affects acetabular cup placement and occurs at each step of THA; however, there are no reports of pelvic motion changes during each stage of THA via the direct anterior approach (DAA). This study aimed to evaluate pelvic motion at each step of THA through the DAA.

Methods

From March to October 2022, 71 hips were prospectively measured for intraoperative pelvic tilt and axial rotation during THA through the DAA at a single center. These parameters were measured during each surgical step using the augmented reality-hip navigation system.

Results

Both pelvic tilt and axial rotation were maximal during acetabular cup placement. The mean intraoperative pelvic tilt and axial rotation during cup placement were 4.8 ± 2.6° (95% confidence interval, 4.19-5.41°) and 4.2 ± 3.3° (95% confidence interval, 3.42-4.98°), respectively. The effects of the acetabular retractor and cup impactor on pelvic tilt and axial rotation were comparable. Spearman's correlation tests showed significant correlation between axial rotation and body mass index (r = -0.444, P = .00011).

Conclusions

The pelvis tilts forward and rotates toward the surgical side during THA through the DAA. The effects of the acetabular retractor and cup impactor on pelvic motion are comparable. Cup implantation must take into account pelvic movement, and it must be recognized that the pelvis is moving at that time, even with only the acetabular retractor inserted, compared to before the skin incision.

Accuracy of Acetabular Cup Placement During Total Hip Arthroplasty in Supine Position Using a Pelvic Rotation Correction Device

Background

Accurate cup placement during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is difficult because the intraoperative pelvic position changes even in supine patient position. We developed a device known as HipPointer; it corrects pelvic rotation and creates a functional pelvic plane as a reference. The aim of this study was to determine the device placement accuracy and investigate causes of error.

Material and methods

HipPointer was used for cup placement in 353 hips of 308 patients who underwent direct-anterior-approach THA in supine position. The mean age at surgery and body mass index were 63.9 (17-90) years and 24.9 (16.6-42.0) kg/m², respectively. The mean observation period was 40.5 (12-73) months. To investigate the accuracy of HipPointer, preoperative planning and postoperative cup placement angles relative to the functional pelvic plane were evaluated using a three-dimensional analysis software, and absolute errors were determined.

Results

The means ± standard deviations of radiographic inclination (RI) and radiographic anteversion (RA) were 40.2 ± 3.0° and 15.8 ± 3.6°, respectively. The absolute errors of RI and RA were 2.2 ± 2.0° and 2.7 ± 2.3°, respectively. The ratio of the cup placement angle for which both RI and RA are ≤10° in the target zone was 99% (350/353 hips), and the ratio of the absolute errors for which both RI and RA are ≤5° was 80.4% (284/353 hips).

Conclusions

HipPointer is simple in structure, easy to use, and useful for direct-anterior-approach THA in supine position. It provides good cup placement accuracy.

Accuracy of cup position following robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty may be associated with surgical approach and pelvic tilt

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of cup placement and determine the predictive risk factors for inaccurate cup positioning in robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA). We retrospectively analyzed 115 patients who underwent robot-assisted THA between August 2018 and November 2019. Acetabular cup alignment and three-dimensional (3D) position were measured using pre- or postoperative computed tomography (CT) data. Absolute differences in cup inclination, anteversion, and 3D position were assessed, and their relation to preoperative factors was evaluated. The average measurement of the absolute differences was 1.8° ± 2.0° (inclination) and 1.9° ± 2.3° (anteversion). The average absolute difference in the 3D cup position was 1.1 ± 1.2 mm (coronal plane) and 0.9 ± 1.0 mm (axial plane). Multivariate analysis revealed that a posterior pelvic tilt [odds ratio (OR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00–1.23] and anterior surgical approach (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.69–15.38) were predictive factors for inaccurate cup positioning with robot-assisted THA. This is the first study to demonstrate the predictive risk factors (posterior pelvic tilt and anterior surgical approach) for inaccurate cup position in robot-assisted THA.

Effects of body mass index and range of motion on intraoperative change in pelvic tilt during total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative pelvic tilt changes that occurs during total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the supine position affects cup placement and sometimes causes malalignment. The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and pelvic movement has been reported for some procedures, but not the direct anterior approach (DAA). The purpose of this study was to investigate intraoperative pelvic tilt changes that occurs during DAA.

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective study, we reviewed 200 hips that underwent primary THA via DAA in the supine position using an accelerometer-based navigation system. Intraoperative changes in pelvic tilt and axial rotation from the start of surgery to cup placement were assessed using the navigation system. Preoperative clinical factors that increased pelvic tilt and axial rotation toward the surgical side by > 10° were analyzed via univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The mean pelvic tilt value increased by 7.6° ± 3.8° (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-8.2; range, - 5.0-19.0) intraoperatively, and the axial rotation increased by 3.2° ± 2.7° (95% CI, 2.7-3.7; range, - 13.0-12.0). Univariate analysis revealed that the group with increased pelvic tilt showed significantly greater range of abduction and internal rotation, and significantly lower BMI than the group with no increased tilt. Pre-incisional pelvic tilt was significantly greater in the group with increased axial rotation than in the group with no increased rotation. On logistic regression analysis, BMI (odds ratio [OR], 0.889; 95% CI, 0.809-0.977; p = 0.014) and the range of internal rotation (OR, 1.310; 95% CI, 1.002-1.061; p = 0.038) were predictors of large increases in pelvic tilt. No predictors of large increases in axial rotation were identified.

CONCLUSION

Significant forward pelvic tilt was observed in patients with a low BMI values and high ranges of internal rotation via THA using the DAA. Findings indicated that surgeons should pay attention to intraoperative pelvic movements, which may help identify patients with significant pelvic tilt changes.