BACKGROUND: All computer-aided surgery technologies assume that the surgeon knows the best position for the implant components. However, there is indirect evidence that simple anatomical information may not be sufficient for the surgeon to decide size and position of the implant in a repeatable manner. METHOD: In the present study we estimated the variability in choosing the size and position of the components of a cementless total hip replacement (THR), using template-on-radiograph as well as computed tomography (CT)-based computer-aided planning. In addition, using a computer model, we assessed the sensitivity to such variability of implant fitting, location of the joint centre, skeletal range of motion, and resting length of major hip muscles. Using templates, surgeons selected the size with variability up to 2.5 mm for the stem and up to 4 mm for the socket. A similar variability was also observed when the CT-based planning program was used. RESULTS: No major differences were found between surgeons. The standard deviation over repeated planning sessions of the selected position for each component, using the CT-based planning software, was found to be 3.9 mm and 8.9 degrees . CONCLUSION: On the basis of the computer simulation, this variability did not affect the selected biomechanical parameters in a drastic way, although some differences were observed, especially in the lever arm of the hip muscles.
BACKGROUND: All computer-aided surgery technologies assume that the surgeon knows the best position for the implant components. However, there is indirect evidence that simple anatomical information may not be sufficient for the surgeon to decide size and position of the implant in a repeatable manner. METHOD: In the present study we estimated the variability in choosing the size and position of the components of a cementless total hip replacement (THR), using template-on-radiograph as well as computed tomography (CT)-based computer-aided planning. In addition, using a computer model, we assessed the sensitivity to such variability of implant fitting, location of the joint centre, skeletal range of motion, and resting length of major hip muscles. Using templates, surgeons selected the size with variability up to 2.5 mm for the stem and up to 4 mm for the socket. A similar variability was also observed when the CT-based planning program was used. RESULTS: No major differences were found between surgeons. The standard deviation over repeated planning sessions of the selected position for each component, using the CT-based planning software, was found to be 3.9 mm and 8.9 degrees . CONCLUSION: On the basis of the computer simulation, this variability did not affect the selected biomechanical parameters in a drastic way, although some differences were observed, especially in the lever arm of the hip muscles.
Authors: Marc N Thomsen; Steffen J Breusch; Peter R Aldinger; Wolfgang Görtz; Andreas Lahmer; Mathias Honl; Andreas Birke; Hans Nägerl Journal: Acta Orthop Scand Date: 2002-08
Authors: A M DiGioia; B Jaramaz; M Blackwell; D A Simon; F Morgan; J E Moody; C Nikou; B D Colgan; C A Aston; R S Labarca; E Kischell; T Kanade Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robert Petretta; Jason Strelzow; Nicholas E Ohly; Peter Misur; Bassam A Masri Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Luis Fernando Useche Gómez; Hernando Gaitán-Lee; María Alejandra Duarte; Patrick Dennis Halley; Alejandro Romero Jaramillo; Efraim Leal García Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Maria E Zeman; Nicolas Sauwen; Luc Labey; Michiel Mulier; Georges Van der Perre; Siegfried V N Jaecques Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Hendrikus J A Crooijmans; Armand M R P Laumen; Carola van Pul; Jan B A van Mourik Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 4.176