Is a portable accelerometer-based navigation system useful in total hip arthroplasty?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

In silico analysis of the patient-specific acetabular cup anteversion safe zone

INTRODUCTION

Various computer-assisted surgical systems claim to improve the accuracy of cup placement in total hip arthroplasties after assessing spinopelvic mobility to prevent prosthetic impingement. However, no study has yet analyzed the extent of the patient-specific cup anteversion safe zones.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that most patients have a safe zone >10 °, except those with abnormal spinopelvic mobility, who have a much narrower safe zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We simulated the risks of prosthetic impingement using the planned cup anteversion. The consecutive cohort included 341 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty. Our primary endpoint was the patient-specific impingement-free zone for cup anteversion, which was then divided into four subgroups: 0 °, 1 ° to 5 °, 6 ° to 10 °, and >10 °. This data was then secondarily analyzed for abnormal spinopelvic mobility (the difference in the spinopelvic tilt [ΔSPT] from a standing to a flexed seated position >20 °).

RESULTS

The mean anteversion safe zone was 22.8 ° with 82.4% (281/341) of patients with a zone strictly >10 °. The mean safe zone was 8.9 ° (+/- 9 °) in patients with an ΔSPT ≥20 ° (18.2%), with 37.1% of these patients having a zone of 0 °, 16.13% a zone between 1 ° and 5 °, 8.06% a zone between 6 ° and 10 ° and 38.71% a zone >10 °. The mean safe zone was 25.9 ° (+/- 9 °) in patients with an ΔSPT <20 ° (81.8%), and the proportion of cases in each zone was 2.51%, 1.08%, 4.3%, and 92.11%, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The safe zone for anteversion appears to be fairly wide in most patients. However, identifying patients at risk of abnormal spinopelvic mobility seems necessary to identify the two-thirds of patients with a narrow safe zone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

Patient-reported outcome differences for navigated and robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty frequently do not achieve clinically important differences: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) using computer-assisted navigation (N-THA) and robot-assisted surgery (RA-THA) has been increasingly adopted to improve implant positioning and offset/leg-length restoration. Whether clinically meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional THA (C-THA) are achieved with intraoperative technology has not been established. This systematic review aimed to assess whether published relative PROM improvements with technology use in THA achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed for studies comparing PROMs for primary N-THA or RA-THA with C-THA as the control group. Relative improvement differences between groups were compared to established MCID values. Reported clinical and radiographic differences were assessed. Review of N-THA and RA-THA literature yielded 6 (n = 2580) and 10 (n = 2786) studies, respectively, for analyses.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROM scores were reported in 2/6 (33.3%) studies comparing N-THA with C-THA, though only 1 (16.7%) reported clinically significant relative improvements. Statistically significant improvements in postoperative PROMs were reported in 6/10 (60.0%) studies comparing RA-THA and C-THA, though none reported clinically significant relative improvements. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-THA and RA-THA were reported in 83.3% and 70.0% of studies, respectively. Only 1 study reported a significant improvement in revision rates with RA-THA as compared to C-THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported PROM scores in studies comparing N-THA or RA-THA to C-THA often do not achieve clinically significant relative improvements. Future studies reporting PROMs should be interpreted in the context of validated MCID values to accurately establish the clinical impact of intraoperative technology.

Sex-based differences in neck selectivity in total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral neck system

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The modular femoral neck system provides practical advantages by allowing adjustment of neck version and length in the presence of intraoperative instability. Anatomical studies have identified morphological differences in the hip joint between men and women. Despite sex-based differences in hip morphology, it remains unclear whether such differences affect neck selectivity in THA using a modular neck system and whether this approach achieves anatomical reconstruction, thereby reducing complications such as dislocation. This study aimed to investigate gender differences in neck selectivity in THA with the modular neck system and assess the clinical impact of the modular neck system.

METHODS

A total of 163 THAs using a modular neck system were included in this study. Data on the type of modular neck and intraoperative range of motion (ROM) were retrieved from patient records. Pre- and post-operative leg length differences (LLD) were examined as part of the radiographic assessment. Dislocation was investigated as a postoperative complication.

RESULTS

Neck selectivity did not significantly differ between men and women. The comparison of pre- and post-operative LLD revealed a tendency for varus necks to improve LLD more than version-controlled necks. Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between intraoperative ROM and neck selectivity, or postoperative dislocation and neck selectivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study on THA with a modular neck system provided valuable insights into sex-based differences in neck selectivity and highlighted the potential benefits of the modular neck system in addressing LLD and preventing postoperative dislocation.

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.

[Trends in navigation-handheld systems]

Navigation-assisted surgical procedures in orthopedics and trauma surgery have become increasingly widespread over the last 20 years. In addition to applications in spinal surgery, they are primarily available for knee and hip endoprosthetics. On the one hand, computer-assisted procedures have been increasingly expanded with robotic assistance systems in recent years, and on the other hand, so-called handheld navigation systems have been developed, which enable specialized use directly in the operating field at lower acquisition costs. The aim of this overview is to describe current handheld systems and to present the respective technical principles and the available scientific results. Three handheld systems for TKA use, two for THA use and one system to support pedicle screw placement on the spine are presented.

Imageless navigation system (Naviswiss) provides accurate component position in total hip arthroplasty with lateral decubitus position for end-stage hip osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study with CT-validation

AIMS

The Naviswiss system (Naviswiss AG, Brugg, Switzerland) is a handheld imageless navigation device used to improve the accuracy of implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, clinical data for leg length discrepancy and femoral offset is lacking, and the validity of the system has not been reported for patients undergoing THA in the lateral decubitus position. This study aimed to report the accuracy of the device in this patient population.

METHODS

Patients underwent THA in the lateral decubitus position performed by a single surgeon. Component position measured by the device intraoperatively was compared to postoperative measurements on computed tomography (CT) scans. Agreement between the navigation system and postoperative measurements was reported for acetabular cup inclination, acetabular cup version, femoral offset, and leg length discrepancy.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis. The mean difference between intraoperative and postoperative CT measurements was within 2° for angular measurements and 2 mm for leg length. Absolute differences in the two indices were up to 4° and 3 mm. The mean bias was 1°-2° overestimation for cup orientation and up to 2 mm overestimation for leg length change. However, 95% limits of agreement did not exceed absolute thresholds of 10° and 10 mm, especially after correction for bias. One case (3%) was declared intraoperatively for issues with fixation on the greater trochanter.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the Naviswiss system falls within clinically acceptable recommendations for acetabular cup placement, femoral offset, and leg length for total hip arthroplasty with a anterolateral approach in lateral decubitus position. The system could be further improved with regression-based bias correction.

CT validation of intraoperative imageless navigation (Naviswiss) for component positioning accuracy in primary total hip arthroplasty in supine patient position: a prospective observational cohort study in a single-surgeon practice

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to report on the validity of the Naviswiss handheld image-free navigation device for accurate intraoperative measurement of THA component positioning, in comparison with the three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of computed tomography (CT) images as the gold standard.

METHODS

A series of patients presenting to a single-surgeon clinic with end-stage hip osteoarthritis received primary hip arthroplasty with the anterolateral muscle-sparing surgical approach in the supine position. Imageless navigation was applied during the procedure with bone-mounted trackers applied to the greater trochanter and ASIS. Patients underwent routine CT scans before and after surgery and these were analyzed by using three-dimensional reconstruction to generate cup orientation, offset and leg length changes, which were compared to the intraoperative measurements provided by the navigation system. Estimates of agreement between the intraoperative and image-derived measurements were assessed with and without correction for bias and declared cases with potential measurement issues.

RESULTS

The mean difference between intraoperative and postoperative CT measurements was within 2° for angular measurements and 2 mm for leg length. Absolute differences for the two indices were between 5° and 4 mm. Mean bias was 1.9°-3.6° underestimation for cup orientation and up to 2 mm overestimation for leg length change, but absolute thresholds of 10° and 10 mm were not exceeded by 95% limits of agreement (LOA), especially after correction for bias. Four cases (12%) were declared intraoperatively for issues with fixation on the greater trochanter. Inclusion of these cases generated acceptable accuracy overall and their omission failed to improve between-case variability in accuracy or LOA for both offset and leg length.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the Naviswiss system applied during primary THA in a supine position and anterolateral surgical approach falls within clinically acceptable recommendations for acetabular cup placement, femoral offset, and length. With refinements to surgical technique to adapt to the navigation hardware, the system could be further improved with regression-based bias correction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000317291).

Changes in leg length and hip offset in navigated imageless vs. conventional total hip arthroplasty

While previous studies on navigated total hip replacement (nTHA) focused on acetabular component positioning, we compared the results of nTHA with conventional total hip replacement (cTHA) in respect of changes in leg length and hip offset. In a single-center study results radiographic parameters of patients with unilateral THA were included. Data were retrospectively analyzed from computer navigation data and radiographs. Analysis concentrated on the discrepancy in leg length (LLD) and hip offset (OSD) between the affected and unaffected hip. The effect of the procedure was defined as the difference between postoperative and preoperative LLD and OSD values in each group. 2332 patients were analyzed. Both nTHA and cTHA were effective in restoring LLD and OSD by reducing the preoperative value significantly (p < 0.001). Regarding changes in LLD, no statistical difference between nTHA and cTHA could be found. Changes in OSD nTHA was a slightly more effective than cTHA (- 2.06 ± 6.00 mm vs. - 1.50 ± 5.35 mm; p < 0.05). Both navigated and conventional THA were successful in reconstruction of leg length and hip offset, while postoperative offset discrepancy was significantly lower in the navigated group at the cost of longer operation times. If these results are clinically relevant further investigation is needed.

Combined kinematic cup alignment reduces the rate of impingement and edge loading compared to mechanical and anatomical alignment. An in-vitro case-control study

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, different alignments have been described for acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA), to reduce the risk of impingement and edge loading. Currently there are 3 main options: mechanical (40° inclination/15° anteversion relative to the anterior pelvic plane), anatomic (40° inclination/anteversion parallel to the transverse ligament) and combined kinematic (according to spinal-pelvic parameters). There are no studies comparing all three in terms of impingement and edge loading. We therefore performed a retrospective case-control in-vitro study comparing risk of impingement and edge loading between the three alignments.

HYPOTHESIS

The study hypothesis was that combined kinematic alignment incurs significantly less risk of impingement and edge loading than do the other two types of alignment.

METHODS

Using a THA planning system, we simulated the 3 alignments for 90 patients undergoing THA with a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing between November 2019 and January 2022; for each simulation, we recorded any prosthetic impingement or edge loading. The study endpoint was the rate of prosthetic impingement or edge loading between the 3 alignments.

RESULTS

With the mechanical alignment, 31% of patients (28/90) showed risk of impingement and 22% (20/90) risk of edge loading. With the anatomic alignment, 31% of patients (28/90) showed risk of impingement and 23.3% (21/90) risk of edge loading. With the combined kinematic alignment, 12.2% of patients (11/90) showed risk of impingement and 8.9% (8/90) risk of edge loading. Pairwise comparison showed that the combined kinematic alignment was associated with significantly less impingement and edge loading than the mechanical alignment (respectively, p=0.03 and p=0.022) or the anatomic alignment (respectively, p=0.03 and p=0.014), while the mechanical and anatomic alignments did not differ.

CONCLUSION

A combined kinematic cup alignment in THA significantly reduced the risk of impingement and edge loading compared to mechanical and anatomic alignments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective case-control study.

Mechanical and Anatomical Alignment Guide Techniques Are Superior to Freehand in Achieving Target Orientation of an Acetabular Component

Background

Achieving accurate and consistent acetabular component orientation remains a major challenge in total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

We used a pelvic model to compare freehand techniques vs mechanical and anatomical alignment guides in achieving a target operative inclination (OI) and operative anteversion (OA). Thirty subjects comprising consultant orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic trainees, and nonsurgical staff positioned an acetabular component in a pelvic model using 3 different methods for guiding inclination and another 3 for guiding version.

Results

Using either a standard mechanical alignment guide (MAG) or a spirit level MAG technique eliminated outliers from target OI, while the freehand method resulted in 46.7% of measurements outside the OI target range. The spirit level MAG technique significantly outperformed the standard MAG technique in median unsigned deviation from target OI (0.8° vs 2.1°, P < .001). Either method of referencing the transverse acetabular ligament for version yielded lower deviations from target OA than the freehand method and fewer outliers from the ±5° target range. Surgical experience was not a significant factor for accurately achieving target OI and OA.

Conclusions

Even in an idealized in vitro model, a wide range of OI and OA is seen with the freehand technique of cup placement by subjects of all levels of surgical experience. Using either a standard MAG or a spirit level MAG reduces deviations in target OI, with the spirit level MAG method yielding the best accuracy. Using the transverse acetabular ligament to guide cup anteversion yields more accurate OA.