Factors related to disagreement in implant size between preoperative CT-based planning and the actual implants used intraoperatively for total hip arthroplasty
- 241 Downloads
In total hip arthroplasty, prediction of the optimal implant size is important in order to prevent perioperative complications. However, it is not easy to achieve complete agreement between the planned size and the actual size required appropriate implant fit. No previous report has adequately discussed the factors related to mismatch between predicted and actual implant sizes. The purpose was to report the results of a single surgeon case series of patients undergoing THA using computed tomography (CT)-based templating and the possible factors related to implant size mismatch.
The study included 141 hips of 126 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty with CT-based navigation. We retrospectively reviewed the planned and actual implant sizes used in these patients. Cup position, cup orientation and stem alignment were evaluated as surgical factors that could possibly be related to mismatch in implant size. Cortical index and canal flare index were also evaluated as morphological factors.
The final inclusions in this study were 124 hips of 111 patients including 82% of those were developmental dysplasia of the hip. Agreement in implant size was seen for 94.4% of cups and 85.5% of stems, respectively. No related factors were found for cup size mismatch. Stem alignment in the sagittal and coronal planes showed significant differences between the size-matched stem group and the smaller stem group (\(p<0.05\)).
Implant size agreement rates between the three-dimensional plan and the actual implants used intraoperatively were high. However, broach alignment should be checked in the coronal and sagittal planes if the intraoperative broach is smaller than the planned size.
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplasty Implant size Preoperative planning CT-based navigation Three-dimensional planning
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 4.Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Pritsch M, Breusch S, Thomsen M, Ewerbeck V, Parsch D (2009) Uncemented grit-blasted straight tapered titanium stems in patients younger than fifty-five years of age. Fifteen to twenty-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(6):1432–1439. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sariali E, Mauprivez R, Khiami F, Pascal-Mousselard H, Catonné Y (2012) Accuracy of the preoperative planning for cementless total hip arthroplasty. A randomised comparison between three-dimensional computerised planning and conventional templating. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(2):151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.09.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Inoue D, Kabata T, Maeda T, Kajino Y, Fujita K, Hasegawa K, Yamamoto T, Tsuchiya H (2015) Value of computed tomography-based three-dimensional surgical preoperative planning software in total hip arthroplasty with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci 20(2):340–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-014-0683-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sugano N, Tsuda K, Miki H, Takao M, Suzuki N, Nakamura N (2012) Dynamic measurements of hip movement in deep bending activities after total hip arthroplasty using a 4-dimensional motion analysis system. J Arthroplasty 27(8):1562–1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.01.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.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):674–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.001 (Epub 2010 Sep 25)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Iwana D, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kitada M, Hananouchi T, Sugano N (2013) Accuracy of angle and position of the cup using computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 18(5–6):187–194. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2013.818713 (Epub 2013 Jul 17)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Noble PC, Box GG, Kamaric E, Fink MJ, Alexander JW, Tullos HS (1995) The effect of aging on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 316:31–44Google Scholar
- 22.Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE (1990) The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:63–81Google Scholar
- 31.Schmidutz F, Steinbrück A, Wanke-Jellinek L, Pietschmann M, Jansson V, Fottner A (2012) The accuracy of digital templating: a comparison of short-stem total hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(9):1767–1772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1532-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Issa K, Pivec R, Boyd B, Harwin SF, Wuestemann T, Nevelos J, Mont MA (2012) Comparing the accuracy of radiographic preoperative digital templating for a second- versus a first-generation THA stem. Orthopedics 35(12):1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20121120-03 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Akiyama H, Hoshino A, Iida H, Shindo H, Takakura Y, Miura H, Yamamoto K, Yoshiya S, Hasegawa Y, Shimamura T, Kurosaka M, Otsuka H, Kawanabe K, Kawate K, Harada Y, Nakamura T, Committee Implant, Association Japanese Orthopaedic (2012) A pilot project for the Japan arthroplasty register. J Orthop Sci 17(4):358–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-012-0229-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar