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

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.

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.