Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 128, Issue 4, pp 429–434 | Cite as

Intraoperative navigation in hip surface arthroplasty: a radiographic comparative analysis study

Orthopaedic Outcome Assessment

Abstract

Background

The goal of the current prospective randomised radiological study was to determine the accuracy of conventional and computer-assisted femoral component implantation in surface arthroplasty (SRA).

Methods

We analysed on standard radiographs the femoral component positions after 30 conventional instrumented (Group 1) and 30 navigated (Group 2) SRA femoral components. We evaluated: varus or valgus orientation, horizontal femoral offset and translation of the component.

Results

The tendency to implant the femoral component in mild valgus position (2.8° in Group 1 compared to 2.1° in Group 2), more distally and ventrally in the femoral neck (in Group 1) and with femoral off-set increase (4.8 mm in Group 1 compared to 3.4 mm in Group 2) was found.

Conclusions

The navigation system enables a more accurate insertion of the femoral component.

Keywords

Surface arthroplasty Computer navigation 

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Duff ML (2004) Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 86A:1874–1877Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Winzenrieth R, Plamondon D, Nuno N (2006) Factors affecting hip range of motion in surface replacement arthroplasty. Hip Int 16(Suppl):106Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Itayem R, Arndt A, Nistor L, McMinn D, Lundberg A (2005) Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two years. A radiostereophotogrammetric analysis study. J Bone Joint Surg 87B:158–162Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glyn-Jones S, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW (2004) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW (2003) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:177–184Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF (2002) Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg 84A:1788–1792Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silva M, Lee KH, Heisel Ch, delaRosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2004) The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86A:40–46Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogoch ER, Fornasier VL, Capello WN (1982) The femoral head remnant in resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 167:92–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ito K, Minka MA, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R (2001) Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg 83B:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J (2002) The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of the anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg 84B:556–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M (2006) Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop 445:181–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D´Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr (2001) Optimizing acetabular component position to minimize impingement and reduce contact stress. J Bone Joint Surg 83A:87–91Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berry DJ (1999) Dislocation. In: Steinberg ME, Garino JP (eds) Revision total hip arthroplasty. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 463–481Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beaulé PE, Lee JL, LeDuff MJ, Amstutz HC, Ebramzadeh E (2004) Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg 86A:2015–2021Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernsmann K, Langlotz U, Ansari B, Wiese M (2000) Computer assisted navigated cup placement in hip arthroplasty—application study in clinical routine. Z Orthop 138:515–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M, Simon DA, Morgan F, Moody JE, Nikou C, Colgan BD, Aston CA, Labarca RS, Kischell E, Kanade T (1998) The Otto Aufranc Award. Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively actabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop 355:8–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haaker R, Tiedjen K, Rubenthaler F, Stockheim M (2003) Computer assisted navigated cup placement in primary and secondary dysplastic hips. Z Orthop 141:105–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM, Blackwell M, Nikou C (1998) Computer assisted measurement of cup placement in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 354:70–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiefer H (2003) OrthoPilot cup navigation—how to optimise cup positioning? Int Orthop 27(S1):S37–S42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ottersbach A, Haaker R (2005) Optimization of cup positioning in THA—comparison between conventional mechanical instrumentation and computer-assisted implanted cups by using the OrthoPilot navigation system. Z Orthop 143:611–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saxler G, Marx A, Vabndervelde D (2004) A comparison of free-hand and computer assisted cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. Z Orthop 142:286–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Štipčák V, Stoklas J, Hart R, Janeček M (2004) Implantation of a non-cemented acetabulum with the use of a navigation system. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 71:288–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richolt JA, Rittmeister ME (2006) Misinterpretation of the anteversion in computer-assisted acetabular cup navigation as a result of a simplified palpation method of the frontal pelvic plane. An untrasonographic assessment. Z Orthop 144:305–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Štipčák V, Hart R, Kučera B (2006) Our experience with an image guided navigation system for accurate alignment in total hip replacement by minimally invasive posterolateral surgery. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 73:350–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hess T, Gampe T, Köttgen C, Szawlowski B (2004) Intraoperative navigation for hip resurfacing. Methods and first results. Orthopade 33:1183–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Kalteis T, Grifka J (2007) Comparison of fluoroscopic and landmark-based technique with the Vector-Vision system. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG, DiGioia AM (eds) Navigation and MIS in orthopedic surgery. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chandler M, Kowalski RSZ, Watkins ND, Briscoe A, New AMR (2006) Cementing techniques in hip resurfacing. Proc IMechE 220(part H):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siebel T, Maubach S, Morlock MM (2006) Lessons learned from early clinical experience and results of 300 ASR® hip resurfacing implantations. Proc IMechE 220(part H):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyGeneral Hospital ZnojmoZnojmoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations