Comparison of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Acetabular Cup Placement in THA: A Matched-pair Controlled Study

Abstract

Background

Improper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored.

Questions/purposes

We therefore sought to compare THA with a robotic-assisted posterior approach with manual alignment techniques through a posterior approach, using a matched-pair controlled study design, to assess whether the use of the robot made it more likely for the acetabular cup to be positioned in the safe zones described by Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al.

Methods

Between September 2008 and September 2012, 160 THAs were performed by the senior surgeon. Sixty-two patients (38.8%) underwent THA using a conventional posterior approach, 69 (43.1%) underwent robotic-assisted THA using the posterior approach, and 29 (18.1%) underwent radiographic-guided anterior-approach THAs. From September 2008 to June 2011, all patients were offered anterior or posterior approaches regardless of BMI and anatomy. Since introduction of the robot in June 2011, all THAs were performed using the robotic technique through the posterior approach, unless a patient specifically requested otherwise. The radiographic cup positioning of the robotic-assisted THAs was compared with a matched-pair control group of conventional THAs performed by the same surgeon through the same posterior approach. The safe zone (inclination, 30°–50°; anteversion, 5°–25°) described by Lewinnek et al. and the modified safe zone (inclination, 30°–45°; anteversion, 5°–25°) of Callanan et al. were used for cup placement assessment. Matching criteria were gender, age ± 5 years, and (BMI) ± 7 units. After exclusions, a total of 50 THAs were included in each group. Strong interobserver and intraobserver correlations were found for all radiographic measurements (r > 0.82; p < 0.001).

Results

One hundred percent (50/50) of the robotic-assisted THAs were within the safe zone described by Lewinnek et al. compared with 80% (40/50) of the conventional THAs (p = 0.001). Ninety-two percent (46/50) of robotic-assisted THAs were within the modified safe zone described by Callanan et al. compared with 62% (31/50) of conventional THAs p (p = 0.001). The odds ratios for an implanted cup out of the safe zones of Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al. were zero and 0.142, respectively (95% CI, 0.044, 0.457).

Conclusions

Use of the robot allowed for improvement in placement of the cup in both safe zones, an important parameter that plays a significant role in long-term success of THA. However, whether the radiographic improvements we observed will translate into clinical benefits for patients—such as reductions in component impingement, acetabular wear, and prosthetic dislocations, or in terms of improved longevity—remains unproven.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3A–B
Fig. 4A–B

References

  1. 1.

    Ali Khan MA, Brakenbury PH, Reynolds IS. Dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63:214–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Archbold HA, Mockford B, Molloy D, McConway J, Ogonda L, Beverland D. The transverse acetabular ligament: an aid to orientation of the acetabular component during primary total hip replacement: a preliminary study of 1000 cases investigating postoperative stability. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:883–886.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Beverland D. The transverse acetabular ligament: optimizing version. Orthopedics. 2010;33:631.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stockl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:762–769.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:319–329.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1291–1297.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Digioia AM 3rd, Jaramaz B, Plakseychuk AY, Moody JE Jr, Nikou C, Labarca RS, Levison TJ, Picard F. Comparison of a mechanical acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:359–364.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dorr LD. Acetabular cup position: the imperative of getting it right. Orthopedics. 2008;31:898–899.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:119–127.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Epstein NJ, Woolson ST, Giori NJ. Acetabular component positioning using the transverse acetabular ligament: can you find it and does it help? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:412–416.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gallo J, Havranek V, Zapletalova J. Risk factors for accelerated polyethylene wear and osteolysis in ABG I total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:19–26.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ha YC, Yoo JJ, Lee YK, Kim JY, Koo KH. Acetabular component positioning using anatomic landmarks of the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3515–3523.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Haaker RG, Tiedjen K, Ottersbach A, Rubenthaler F, Stockheim M, Stiehl JB. Comparison of conventional versus computer-navigated acetabular component insertion. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:151–159.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hassan DM, Johnston GH, Dust WN, Watson G, Dolovich AT. Accuracy of intraoperative assessment of acetabular prosthesis placement. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:80–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hohmann E, Bryant A, Tetsworth K. A comparison between imageless navigated and manual freehand technique acetabular cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1078–1082.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM 3rd, Blackwell M, Nikou C. Computer assisted measurement of cup placement in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;354:70–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jolles BM, Genoud P, Hoffmeyer P. Computer-assisted cup placement techniques in total hip arthroplasty improve accuracy of placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;426:174–179.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kalteis T, Handel M, Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Grifka J. 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. 2006;88:163–167.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Baethis H, Grifka J. Greater accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup by using an image-free navigation system. Int Orthop. 2005;29:272–276.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kalteis T, Sendtner E, Beverland D, Archbold PA, Hube R, Schuster T, Renkawitz T, Grifka J. The role of the transverse acetabular ligament for acetabular component orientation in total hip replacement: an analysis of acetabular component position and range of movement using navigation software. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1021–1026.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:530–534.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kumar PG, Kirmani SJ, Humberg H, Kavarthapu V, Li P. Reproducibility and accuracy of templating uncemented THA with digital radiographic and digital TraumaCad templating software. Orthopedics. 2009;32:815.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kummer FJ, Shah S, Iyer S, DiCesare PE. The effect of acetabular cup orientations on limiting hip rotation. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:509–513.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Leenders T, Vandevelde D, Mahieu G, Nuyts R. Reduction in variability of acetabular cup abduction using computer assisted surgery: a prospective and randomized study. Comput Aided Surg. 2002;7:99–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Leslie IJ, Williams S, Isaac G, Ingham E, Fisher J. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2259–2265.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:217–220.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:159–170.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Morrey BF. Difficult complications after hip joint replacement: dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:179–187.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Murphy SB, Ecker TM. Evaluation of a new leg length measurement algorithm in hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:85–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:228–232.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Parratte S, Argenson JN. Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:494–499.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Saxler G, Marx A, Vandevelde D, Langlotz U, Tannast M, Wiese M, Michaelis U, Kemper G, Grutzner PA, Steffen R, von Knoch M, Holland-Letz T, Bernsmann K. The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning: a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop. 2004;28:198–201.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Shon WY, Baldini T, Peterson MG, Wright TM, Salvati EA. Impingement in total hip arthroplasty a study of retrieved acetabular components. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:427–435.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241–248.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Steinberg EL, Shasha N, Menahem A, Dekel S. Preoperative planning of total hip replacement using the TraumaCad system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130:1429–1432.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wan Z, Malik A, Jaramaz B, Chao L, Dorr LD. Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:32–42.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Westacott DJ, McArthur J, King RJ, Foguet P. Assessment of cup orientation in hip resurfacing: a comparison of TraumaCad and computed tomography. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815–821.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Woo RY, Morrey BF. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1295–1306.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yamaguchi M, Akisue T, Bauer TW, Hashimoto Y. The spatial location of impingement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:305–313.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ybinger T, Kumpan W, Hoffart HE, Muschalik B, Bullmann W, Zweymuller K. Accuracy of navigation-assisted acetabular component positioning studied by computed tomography measurements: methods and results. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:812–817.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Zachary Finley BA, Ryan Baise BS, Jennifer C. Stone MA, and Anthony P. Trenga BA for assistance with data collection and analysis and literature review.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin G. Domb MD.

Additional information

The institution of one or more of the authors (BGD) has received, during the study period, funding from Mako Corporation (Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA) in an amount less than USD 10,000. The institution of one author (BGD) has received, during the study period, funding from Arthrex Inc (Naples, FL, USA).

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

This work was performed at the American Hip Institute, Westmont, IL, USA.

About this article

Cite this article

Domb, B.G., El Bitar, Y.F., Sadik, A.Y. et al. Comparison of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Acetabular Cup Placement in THA: A Matched-pair Controlled Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 329–336 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Posterior Approach
  • Acetabular Component
  • Safe Zone
  • Operate Room Time
  • Anteversion Angle