International Orthopaedics

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1063–1068 | Cite as

Evaluation of the accuracy of femoral component orientation by the CT-based fluoro-matched navigation system

  • Shinya Hayashi
  • Takayuki Nishiyama
  • Takaaki Fujishiro
  • Shingo Hashimoto
  • Noriyuki Kanzaki
  • Kotaro Nishida
  • Ryosuke Kuroda
  • Masahiro Kurosaka
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Accurate orientation of acetabular and femoral components are important during THA. However, no study has assessed the use of the CT-based fluoro-matched navigation system during THA. Therefore, we have evaluated the accuracy of stem orientation by CT-based fluoro-matched navigation.

Methods

The accuracy of stem orientation by CT-based fluoro-matched navigation was assessed by postoperative CT data. Furthermore, we compared the postoperative stem orientation with the intraoperative registration errors.

Results

The average antetorsion error of the stem (navigation records − postoperative CT) was −0.5° ± 5.2°. The stem valgus error was 0.4° ± 2.7°. The accuracy of the navigation record for the orientation of the stem valgus was dependent on the intraoperative registration errors.

Conclusions

The clinical accuracy of CT-based fluoro-matched navigation is adequate for stem alignment orientation, and the intraoperative verification of registration errors is valuable for checking the accuracy of stem orientation by navigation.

Keywords

Navigation System Compute Tomography Data Registration Error Postoperative Compute Tomography Valgus Angle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E, Catone Y (2009) Accuracy of reconstruction of the hip using computerised three-dimensional pre-operative planning and a cementless modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(3):333–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jerosch J, von Hasselbach C, Filler T, Peuker E, Rahgozar M, Lahmer A (1998) Increasing the quality of preoperative planning and intraoperative application of computer-assisted systems and surgical robots—an experimental study. Chirurg 69(9):973–976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wines AP, McNicol D (2006) Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(5):696–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wixson RL, MacDonald MA (2005) Total hip arthroplasty through a minimal posterior approach using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation. J Arthroplasty 20(7 Suppl 3):51–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Najarian BC, Kilgore JE, Markel DC (2009) Evaluation of component positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device compared with traditional methods. J Arthroplasty 24(1):15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitada M, Nakamura N, Iwana D, Kakimoto A, Nishii T, Sugano N (2011) Evaluation of the accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation for femoral stem orientation and leg length discrepancy. J Arthroplasty 26(5):674–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryan JA, Jamali AA, Bargar WL (2010) Accuracy of computer navigation for acetabular component placement in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):169–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalteis T, Handel M, Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Grifka J (2006) Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: is it as accurate as CT-based navigation? J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(2):163–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohmann E, Bryant A, Tetsworth K (2012) Anterior pelvic soft tissue thickness influences acetabular cup positioning with imageless navigation. J Arthroplasty 27(6):945–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsukada S, Wakui M (2010) Decreased accuracy of acetabular cup placement for imageless navigation in obese patients. J Orthop Sci 15(6):758–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasart O, Perka C, Christian K, Asbach P, Janz V, Wassilew GI (2010) Influence of body mass index and thickness of soft tissue on accuracy of ultrasound and pointer based registration in navigation of cup in hip arthroplasty. Technol Health Care 18(4–5):341–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee YS, Yoon TR (2008) Error in acetabular socket alignment due to the thick anterior pelvic soft tissues. J Arthroplasty 23(5):699–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jerosch J, Peuker E, von Hasselbach C, Lahmer A, Filler T, Witzel U (1999) Computer assisted implantation of the femoral stem in THA—an experimental study. Int Orthop 23(4):224–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zheng G, Marx A, Langlotz U, Widmer KH, Buttaro M, Nolte LP (2002) A hybrid CT-free navigation system for total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 7(3):129–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shinya Hayashi
    • 1
  • Takayuki Nishiyama
    • 1
  • Takaaki Fujishiro
    • 1
  • Shingo Hashimoto
    • 1
  • Noriyuki Kanzaki
    • 1
  • Kotaro Nishida
    • 1
  • Ryosuke Kuroda
    • 1
  • Masahiro Kurosaka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations