Patient-Specific Surgical Guide for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Chapter

Abstract

In combination with the advancements of three-dimensional printing, a patient-specific surgical guide (PSG) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a convenient surgical instrument and has been implicated in the ideal positioning of the components, including acetabular and femoral components. PSG is designed and manufactured based on either preoperative computed tomography (CT) data or magnetic resonance imaging data. PSGs for THA are mainly classified into three types: PSG for guidewire insertion, PSG for bone cutting, and PSG for bone reaming and implant fixation. PSG positioning accuracy depends on the PSG design and contact area on the bone surface. PSGs for the acetabular component, for the conventional femoral component, and for the resurfacing femoral component have been clinically used. Based on the removal of soft tissues and preparation needed to confirm PSG setting, PSGs for THA do not always mean minimal invasive surgery.

Keywords

Patient-specific surgical guide Total hip arthroplasty Guidewire insertion Bone cutting Accuracy 

References

  1. 1.
    Radermacher K, Portheine F, Anton M, Zimolong A, Kaspers G, Rau G, Staudte HW. Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery with image based individual templates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;354:28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miki H, Yamanashi W, Nishii T, Sato Y, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:946–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:282–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;13:530–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hananouchi T, Saito M, Koyama T, Hagio K, Murase T, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H. Tailor-made surgical guide based on rapid prototyping technique for cup insertion in total hip Arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot. 2009;5:164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hananouchi T, Saito M, Koyama T, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H. Tailor-made surgical guide reduces incidence of outliers of cup placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1088–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunz M, Rudan JF, Xenoyannis GL, Ellis RE. Computer-assisted hip resurfacing using individualized drill templates. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:600–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raaijmaakers M, Gelaude F, De Smedt K, Clijmans T, Dille J, Mulier M. A custom-made guide-wire positioning device for hip surface replacement Arthroplasty: description and first results. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang YZ, Chen B, Lu S, Yang Y, Zhao JM, Liu R, Li YB, Pei GX. Preliminary application of computer-assissted patient-specific acetabular navigational template for total hip arthroplasty in adult single development dysplasia of the hip. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2011;7:469–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andenaert E, De Smedt K, Gelaude F, Clijmans T, Pattyn C, Geebelen B. A custom-made guide for femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: development and validation study. Comput Aided Surg. 2011;16:304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buller L, Smith T, Bryan J, Klika A, Barsoum W, Ianntti JP. The use of patient-specific instrumentation improves the accuracy of acetabular component placement. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:631–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitada M, Sakai T, Murase T, Hanada T, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Validation of the femoral component placement during hip resurfacing: a comparison between the conventional jig, patient-specific template, and CT-based navigation. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9:223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sakai T, Hanada T, Murase T, Kitada M, Hamada H, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Validation of patient specific surgical guides in total hip arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10:113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Small T, Krebs V, Molloy R, Bryan J, Klika AK, Barsoum WK. Comparison of acetabular shell position using patient specific instruments vs. standard surgical instruments: a randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1030–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakai T, Hamada H, Takao M, Murase T, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Validation of patient-specific surgical guides for femoral neck cutting in total hip arthroplasty through the anterolateral approach. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steppacher SD, Kowal JH, Murphy SB. Improving cup positioning using a mechanical navigation instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:423–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitada M, Nakamura N, Iwana D, Kakimoto A, Nishii T, Sugano N. Evaluation of the accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation for femoral stem orientation and leg length discrepancy. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:674–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murase T, Oka K, Moritomo H, Goto A, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K. Three-dimensional corrective osteotomy of malunited fractures of the upper extremity with use of a computer simulation system. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2375–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations