Interactive Surgery

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 139–147 | Cite as

Computer assisted hip surgery by using modular-neck femoral component: principles, technique, advantages and limits

Original Article
First Online:
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The author describes the use of a CT-free navigation system equipped with a software, specifically designed to improve the implantation of a modular-neck anatomic cementless stem and acetabular cup for Total Hip Replacement (THR). When comparing the anatomic parameters measured intraoperatively with the native hip and the prosthetic hip, it appears that the use of the modular-neck allows a better approximation of the native hip lateralization and cranio-podal lowering. Cost and additional time might very well be compensated by the significant outlier reduction. For other technologies (CT-based, Imageless, and virtual fluoroscopy), the average operative time is 20–30 min longer (on the average) as compared to conventional procedure. The image-free systems are not able to navigate dysplastic and revision cases. The CT-based navigation systems are more accurate than imageless navigation for the insertion of the acetabular component in THR, but necessitate preoperative CT-image acquisition. Virtual fluoroscopy is able to navigate hips where CT or CT less images are poor (as in revision THR) and in cases of previous hip fusion (where routine CT registration or point-clouds methods are not possible). Virtual fluoroscopy does not necessitate preoperative CT and planning, but the system has the disadvantage that the procedure is disrupted by the use of fluoroscopy during surgery. Patients with dysplastic hips, especially when osteotomies of the proximal part of the femur have been performed, have significant improvement in function with the use of custom made THR.

Keywords

Hip surgery Total Hip Replacement Modular femoral neck Computer assisted hip surgery Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS) Computer Assisted Medical Intervention (CAMI) Surgical Navigation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lavallee S, Troccaz J, Sautot P, et al. (1995) Computer assisted spine surgery using anatomy-based registration. In: Taylor R, Lavallée S, Burdea G, Mösges R (eds) Computer integrated surgery. MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 425–449Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stulberg SD, Picard F, Saragaglia D (2000) Computer assisted total knee arthroplasty. Operat Techniq Orthopaed 10(1): 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langlotz F, Hinsche AF, Smith RM (2004) Hip and pelvic osteotomies. In: Di Gioia AM, Jaramaz B, Picard F, Nolte LP (eds) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 189–195Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jaramaz B, Di Gioia AM (2004) Total hip replacementnavigation technique. In: Di Gioia AM, Jaramaz B, Picard F, Nolte LP (eds) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 97–112Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleute M, Lavallée S, Julliard R (1999) Incorporating a statistically based shape model into a system for computer assisted anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Med Image Anal 3: 209–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleute M, Desbat L, Martin R, et al. (2001) Statistical model registration for a C-arm CT system. In: NSS/MIC (Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), San Diego, p. 112 (abstract book)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Picard F, Moody JE, Di Gioia AM, Jaramaz B (2004) Clinical classification of CAOS systems. In: Di Gioia AM, Jaramaz B, Picard F, Nolte LP (eds) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 43–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toni A, Paderni S, Sudanese A, et al. (2001) Anatomic cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic bearings and modular necks: 3 to 5 years follow-up. Hip Int 11(1): 1–17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toni A, Sudanese A, Paderni S, et al. (2001) Cementless hip arthroplasty with a modular neck. Chir Organ Mov LXXXVI: 73–85Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiefer H (2004) Acetabular cup navigation with the Orthopilot™ system. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 70–75Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kluge WH, Babisch J, Venbrocks RA (2004) Acetabular cup navigation with the VectorVision™ system. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 76–81Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nogler M, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Sledge J (2004) Minimally invasive hip surgery with imageless navigation. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 110–115Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Honl M, Schwieger K, Salineros M, et al. (2006) Orientation of the acetabular component. A comparison of five navigation systems with conventional surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg 88B(10): 1401–1405Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalteis T, Handel M, Bäthis H, et al. (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): 163–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Di Gioia A, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M, et al. (1998) Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively acetabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355: 8–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Babisch J, Layher F, Venbrocks RA (2004) Computer assisted planning and navigation of total hip arthroplasty using the Navitrack™ and mediCAD™ system. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 82–89Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haaker RG (2004) Hip navigation using the SurgiGATE™ system in dysplastic and revision cases. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlinn, p. 96–101Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langlotz F, Marx A, Kubiak-Langer M, et al. (2004) Femoral stem navigation with the SurgiGATE™ system. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 102–109Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murphy SB, Deshmukh R (2003) Clinical results of computer assisted total hip arthroplasty. In: Langlotz F, Davies BL, Bauer A (eds) Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery. Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt, p. 250–251Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy SB (2005) Comparison of experienced with CT based and fluoroscopy-based surgical navigation for total hip arthroplasty. In: Langlotz F, Davies BL, Schlenzka D (eds) Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery. Pro Business, Berlin, p. 334–335Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Argenson JN, Flecher X, Aubagnac JM (2004) Computer assisted designed hip arthoplasty. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 160–168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Paris 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHU Albert-MichallonUniversity Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryGrenoble cedex 09France

Personalised recommendations