Skip to main content
Log in

The accuracy of component positioning during revision total hip arthroplasty using 3D optical computer-assisted navigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the excellent outcomes associated with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), implant failure and revision continue to burden the healthcare system. The use of computer-assisted navigation (CAN) offers the potential for more accurate placement of hip components during surgery. While intraoperative CAN systems have been shown to improve outcomes in primary THA, their use in the context of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been elucidated. We sought to investigate the validity of using CAN during rTHA.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed at an academic medical institution identifying all patients who underwent rTHA using CAN from 2016–2019. Patients were 1:1 matched with patients undergoing rTHA without CAN (control) based on demographic data. Cup anteversion, inclination, change in leg length discrepancy (ΔLLD) and change in femoral offset between pre- and post-operative plain weight-bearing radiographic images were measured and compared between both groups. A safety target zone of 15–25° for anteversion and 30–50° for inclination was used as a reference for precision analysis of cup position.

Results

Eighty-four patients were included: 42 CAN cases and 42 control cases. CAN cases displayed a lower ΔLLD (5.74 ± 7.0 mm vs 9.13 ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.04) and greater anteversion (23.4 ± 8.53° vs 19.76 ± 8.36°, p = 0.0468). There was no statistical difference between the proportion of CAN or control cases that fell within the target safe zone (40% vs 20.9%, p =  0.06). Femoral offset was similar in CAN and control cases (7.63 ± 5.84 mm vs 7.14 ± 4.8 mm, p = 0.68).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the use of CAN may improve accuracy in cup placement compared to conventional methodology, but our numbers are underpowered to show a statistical difference. However, with a ΔLLD of ~ 3.4 mm, CAN may be useful in facilitating the successful restoration of pre-operative leg length following rTHA. Therefore, CAN may be a helpful tool for orthopedic surgeons to assist in cup placement and LLD during complex revision cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 89:780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:128–133. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS et al (2017) Current Epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national inpatient sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplast 32:2088–2092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF (2002) Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplast 17:282–288. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.30286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H et al (2004) Influence of component positions on dislocation: computed tomographic evaluations in a consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:162–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2003.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE et al (1998) Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplast 13:530–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90052-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Xu K, Li Y, min, Zhang H feng, et al (2014) Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis ofrandomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 12:528–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang JD, Kim IS, Prabhakar S et al (2017) Revision total hip arthroplasty using imageless navigation with the concept of combined anteversion. J Arthroplast 32:1576–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jolles BM, Genoud P, Hoffmeyer P (2004) Computer-assisted cup placement techniques in total hip arthroplasty improve accuracy of placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000141903.08075.83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nogler M, Kessler O, Prassl A et al (2004) Reduced variability of acetabular cup positioning with use of an imageless navigation system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:159–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000141902.30946.6d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Christ A, Ponzio D, Pitta M et al (2018) Minimal increase in total hip arthroplasty surgical procedural time with the use of a novel surgical navigation tool. Open Orthop J 12:389–395. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001812010389

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 24:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bohl DD, Nolte MT, Ong K et al (2019) Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 101:250–256. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mainard D (2008) Navigated and nonnavigated total hip arthroplasty: results of two consecutive series using a cementless straight hip stem. Orthopedics 31:321–322

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kalteis T, Handel M, Bäthis H et al (2006) Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. Is it accurate as CT-based navigation? J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 88:163–167. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T et al (2005) Greater accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup by using an image-free navigation system. Int Orthop 29:272–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0671-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Leenders T, Vandevelde D, Mahieu G, Nuyts R (2002) Reduction in variability of acetabular cup abduction using computer assisted surgery: a prospective and randomized study. Comput Aided Surg 7:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/igs.10033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Parratte S, Argenson JNA (2007) Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 89:494–499. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Paprosky WG, Muir JM (2016) Intellijoint HIP®: A 3D mini-optical navigation tool for improving intraoperative accuracy during total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices Evid Res 9:401–408. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S119161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vigdorchik JM, Cross MB, Bogner EA et al (2017) A cadaver study to evaluate the accuracy of a new 3D mini-optical navigation tool for total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 30:447–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cross MB, Schwarzkopf R, Miller TT et al (2018) Improving registration accuracy during total hip arthroplasty: a cadaver study of a new, 3-D mini-optical navigation system. HIP Int 28:33–39. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Meftah M, Siddappa VH, Muir JM (2021) Accuracy of imageless navigation for functional cup positioning and restoration of leg length in total hip arthroplasty: a matched comparative analysis. Curr Orthop Pract 32:48–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000000952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sharan M, Tang A, Schoof L et al (2021) Obesity does not influence acetabular component accuracy when using a 3D optical computer navigation system. J Clin Orthop Trauma 14:40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.09.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Franke J, Zheng G, Wendl K et al (2012) Clinical experience with computer navigation in revision total hip arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 226:919–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411912456792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT et al (2016) What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:386–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4432-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tezuka T, Heckmann ND, Bodner RJ, Dorr LD (2019) Functional safe zone is superior to the lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability. J Arthroplast 34:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R et al (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ecker TM, Tannast M, Murphy SB (2007) Computed tomography-based surgical navigation for hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Related Res 465:100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuroda K, Kabata T, Maeda T et al (2014) The value of computed tomography based navigation in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:711–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2166-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ellapparadja P, Mahajan V, Atiya S et al (2016) Leg length discrepancy in computer navigated total hip arthroplasty - how accurate are we? HIP Int 26:438–443. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li YL, Jia J, Wu Q et al (2014) Evidence-based computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: an updated analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:531–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1222-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kubota Y, Kaku N, Tabata T et al (2019) Efficacy of computed tomography-based navigation for cup placement in revision total hip arthroplasty. CiOS Clin Orthop Surg 11:43–51. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sabharwal S, Kumar A (2008) Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. Springer, New York, pp 2910–2922

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sabharwal S, Zhao C, McKeon JJ et al (2006) Computed radiographic measurement of limb-length discrepancy: full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph compared with scanogram. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 88:2243–2251. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kjellberg M, Al-Amiry B, Englund E et al (2012) Measurement of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. The reliability of a plain radiographic method compared to CT-scanogram. Skeletal Radiol 41:187–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1166-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Meftah M, Yadav A, Wong AC et al (2013) A novel method for accurate and reproducible functional cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:1200–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ran Schwarzkopf.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

Dr. Mercuri is a paid consultant for Medacta and unpaid consultant for Intellijoint. Both Dr. Meftah and Dr. Schwarzkopf are paid consultants for Intellijoint. Dr. Schwarzkopf also holds stocks or stock options in Intellijoint.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, A., Singh, V., Sharan, M. et al. The accuracy of component positioning during revision total hip arthroplasty using 3D optical computer-assisted navigation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33, 1989–1995 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03383-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03383-z

Keywords

Navigation