Advertisement

Reliability of computer-assisted periacetabular osteotomy using a minimally invasive approach

  • Sepp De RaedtEmail author
  • Inger Mechlenburg
  • Maiken Stilling
  • Lone Rømer
  • Ryan J. Murphy
  • Mehran Armand
  • Jyri Lepistö
  • Marleen de Bruijne
  • Kjeld Søballe
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is the treatment of choice for younger patients with developmental hip dysplasia. The procedure aims to normalize the joint configuration, reduce the peak-pressure, and delay the development of osteoarthritis. The procedure is technically demanding and no previous study has validated the use of computer navigation with a minimally invasive transsartorial approach.

Methods

Computer-assisted PAO was performed on ten patients. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning with a standardized protocol. Preoperative preparation consisted of outlining the lunate surface and segmenting the pelvis and femur from CT data. The Biomechanical Guidance System was used intra-operatively to automatically calculate diagnostic angles and peak-pressure measurements. Manual diagnostic angle measurements were performed based on pre- and postoperative CT. Differences in angle measurements were investigated with summary statistics, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland–Altman plots. The percentage postoperative change in peak-pressure was calculated.

Results

Intra-operative reported angle measurements show a good agreement with manual angle measurements with intraclass correlation coefficient between 0.94 and 0.98. Computer navigation reported angle measurements were significantly higher for the posterior sector angle (\(1.65^{\circ }\), \(p=0.001\)) and the acetabular anteversion angle (\(1.24^{\circ }\), \(p=0.004\)). No significant difference was found for the center-edge (\(p=0.056\)), acetabular index (\(p=0.212\)), and anterior sector angle (\(p=0.452\)). Peak-pressure after PAO decreased by a mean of 13% and was significantly different (\(p=0.008\)).

Conclusions

We found that computer navigation can reliably be used with a minimally invasive transsartorial approach PAO. Angle measurements generally agree with manual measurements and peak-pressure was shown to decrease postoperatively. With further development, the system will become a valuable tool in the operating room for both experienced and less experienced surgeons performing PAO. Further studies with a larger cohort and follow-up will allow us to investigate the association with peak-pressure and postoperative outcome and pave the way to clinical introduction.

Keywords

Hip dysplasia Computer-assisted surgery Surgical Navigation Intra-operative angle measurements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association (Gigtforeningen). We would like to acknowledge Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). The BGS was previously developed under grant number R01EB006839 from National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD (1983) Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res No 175:79–85Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reijman M, Hazes JMW, Pols HAP, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra S (2005) Acetabular dysplasia predicts incident osteoarthritis of the hip: the Rotterdam study. Arthritis Rheum 52:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharp IK (1961) Acetabular Dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 43–B:268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siebenrock KA, Schöll E, Lottenbach M (1999) Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tönnis D (1987) Congenital dysplasia and dislocation of the hip in children and adults. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leunig M (2011) Evolution of technique and indications for the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 69(Suppl 1):S42–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troelsen A, Elmengaard B, Søballe K (2008) A new minimally invasive transsartorial approach for periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW (1988) A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:26–36Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hipp JA, Sugano N, Millis MB, Murphy SB (1999) Planning acetabular redirection osteotomies based on joint contact pressures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 364:134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Troelsen A, Elmengaard B, Søballe K (2009) Medium-term outcome of periacetabular osteotomy and predictors of conversion to total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2169–2179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Armiger RS, Armand M, Tallroth K, Lepisto J, Mears SC (2009) Three-dimensional mechanical evaluation of joint contact pressure in 12 periacetabular osteotomy patients with 10-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 80:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lepisto J, Armand M, Armiger RS (2008) Periacetabular osteotomy in adult hip dysplasia—developing a computer aided real-time biomechanical guiding system (BGS). Suom Ortoped Traumatol 31:186–190PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy RJ, Armiger RS, Lepisto J, Mears SC, Taylor RH, Armand M (2014) Development of a biomechanical guidance system for periacetabular osteotomy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(4):497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akiyama H, Goto K, So K, Nakamura T (2010) Computed tomography-based navigation for curved periacetabular osteotomy. J Orthop Sci 15:829–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsieh P-H, Chang Y-H, Shih C-H (2006) Image-guided periacetabular osteotomy: computer-assisted navigation compared with the conventional technique: a randomized study of 36 patients followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop 77:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langlotz F, Bächler R, Berlemann U, Nolte LP, Ganz R (1998) Computer assistance for pelvic osteotomies. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langlotz F, Stucki M, Bächler R, Scheer C, Ganz R, Berlemann U, Nolte LP (1997) The first twelve cases of computer assisted periacetabular osteotomy. Comput Aided Surg 2:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayman DJ, Rudan J, Yach J, Ellis R (2002) The Kingston periacetabular osteotomy utilizing computer enhancement: a new technique. Comput Aided Surg 7:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsieh PH, Shih CH, Lee PC, Yang WE, Lee ZL (2003) A modified periacetabular osteotomy with use of the transtrochanteric exposure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:244–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tönnis D, Heinecke A (1999) Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1747–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krčah M, Székely G, Blanc R (2011) Fully automatic and fast segmentation of the femur bone from 3D-CT images with no shape prior. In: ISBI. pp 2087–2090Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Raedt S, Mechlenburg I, Stilling M, Søballe K, Rømer L, de Bruijne M (2013) Automated measurement of diagnostic angles for hip dysplasia. In: Novak CL, Aylward S (eds) Medical imaging 2013: computer-aided diagnosis. SPIE, p 867009Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B (2006) The visualization toolkit, 4th edn. Kitware, Clifton Park, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Armiger RS, Armand M, Lepisto J, Minhas D, Tallroth K, Mears SC, Waites MD, Taylor RH (2007) Evaluation of a computerized measurement technique for joint alignment before and during periacetabular osteotomy. Comput Aided Surg 12:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niknafs N, Murphy RJ, Armiger RS, Lepisto J, Armand M (2013) Biomechanical factors in planning of periacetabular osteotomy. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 1:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Machine Intell 14:239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murphy RJ, Armiger RS, Lepisto J, Armand M (2016) Clinical evaluation of a biomechanical guidance system for periacetabular osteotomy. J Orthop Surg Res 11:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiberg G (1939) Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint with special reference to the complications of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand 83:53–68Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA, Svenningsen S (1991) Acetabular angles and femoral anteversion in dysplastic hips in adults: CT investigation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nolden M, Zelzer S, Seitel A, Wald D, Müller M, Franz AM, Maleike D, Fangerau M, Baumhauer M, Maier-Hein L, Maier-Hein KH, Meinzer H-P, Wolf I (2013) The medical imaging interaction toolkit: challenges and advances: 10 years of open-source development. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8:607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers SR, Eijer H, Ganz R (1999) Anterior femoroacetabular impingement after periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anderson AE, Ellis BJ, Maas SA, Peters CL, Weiss JA (2008) Validation of finite element predictions of cartilage contact pressure in the human hip joint. J Biomech Eng 130:051008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tabrizi PR, Zoroofi RA, Yokota F, Tamura S, Nishii T, Sato Y (2015) Acetabular cartilage segmentation in CT arthrography based on a bone-normalized probabilistic atlas. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:433–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Troelsen A, Rømer L, Kring S, Elmengaard B, Søballe K (2010) Assessment of hip dysplasia and osteoarthritis: variability of different methods. Acta Radiol 51:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hartig-Andreasen C, Troelsen A, Thillemann TM, Søballe K (2012) What factors predict failure 4 to 12 years after periacetabular osteotomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2978–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sepp De Raedt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Inger Mechlenburg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maiken Stilling
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lone Rømer
    • 3
  • Ryan J. Murphy
    • 4
  • Mehran Armand
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jyri Lepistö
    • 6
  • Marleen de Bruijne
    • 7
    • 8
  • Kjeld Søballe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineAarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark
  4. 4.Research and Exploratory Development DepartmentJohns Hopkins University Applied Physics LaboratoryLaurelUSA
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.ORTON Orthopaedic HospitalHelsinkiFinland
  7. 7.Departments of Radiology and Medical InformaticsBiomedical Imaging Group RotterdamErasmus MC RotterdamThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations