Literature DB >> 18676939

Imageless navigation in hip resurfacing: avoiding component malposition during the surgeon learning curve.

James R Romanowski1, Michael L Swank.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that hip arthroplasty procedures performed in specialty hospitals or by physicians in practices with a high surgical volume are associated with a decreased rate of adverse outcomes related to component malpositioning. Little is known, however, about the influence of imageless computer navigation systems on the procedural experience of the surgeon and the subsequent alignment of implants in the setting of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive hip resurfacing arthroplasties in which the components were placed with use of computer-assisted navigation were reviewed retrospectively. Intraoperative femoral and acetabular component parameters were compared with postoperative radiographic alignment values. Within this single surgeon series, operative time, intraoperative cup inclination and femoral stem-shaft angles, and postoperative cup inclination and femoral stem-shaft angles were measured and compared over the course of three discrete, sequential operative time periods. Patient demographic data and surgical parameters, including blood loss, surgical approach, and anesthesia time, were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant difference was seen between the intraoperative and postoperative cup inclination angles. A significant difference was noted between the intraoperative and postoperative femoral stem-shaft angles; however, the mean angles in all groups had a valgus orientation when compared with the mean native neck angles. Over three sequential operative time periods, computer-assisted navigation produced consistent values with regard to intraoperative cup inclination (43 degrees , 44 degrees , and 40 degrees ) and postoperative radiographic alignment of the cup (46 degrees , 44 degrees , and 43 degrees ) and femoral stem (148 degrees , 147 degrees , and 144 degrees ), despite different levels of surgeon experience. Operative times significantly decreased with surgeon experience, showing the largest decrease after the first sequence interval (110, ninety-eight, and ninety-five minutes, respectively). There was a significant difference with evolving surgeon experience concerning intraoperative stem placement (144 degrees , 142 degrees , and 138 degrees , respectively) despite the mean values remaining well-clustered. No femoral notching occurred throughout the series.
CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted navigation is a dependable and accurate method of positioning hip resurfacing components during arthroplasty, as measured by cup inclination, and a reliable technique for valgus stem placement and avoidance of notching. Furthermore, computer navigation allows for consistency of component alignment independent of procedural experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18676939     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00462

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  14 in total

1.  [Imageless computer navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty].

Authors:  Christoph Schnurr; Jochen Nessler; Jürgen Koebke; Joern William Michael; Peer Eysel; Dietmar Pierre König
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

2.  Intraoperative radiographs for placing acetabular components in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thomas P Gross; Fei Liu; Lee Webb
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A simple technique for alignment in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty: technical note and preliminary report.

Authors:  Manuel Villanueva-Martínez; Antonio Ríos-Luna; Angel Villamor-Pérez
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2009-06-09

4.  The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists.

Authors:  Ryan M Nunley; Jinjun Zhu; Peter J Brooks; C Anderson Engh; Stephen J Raterman; John S Rogerson; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Reproducibility of radiographic assessment of femoral implant position after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a pilot study.

Authors:  Régis Pailhé; Nicolas Reina; David Ancelin; Etienne Cavaignac; Laurent Maubisson; Akash Sharma; Philippe Chiron
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-04-05

6.  Avoiding short-term femoral neck fracture with imageless computer navigation for hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Michael Olsen; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

Authors:  David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Aaron J Johnson; Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-02       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 8.  Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2013-02-20

9.  Computer navigation experience in hip resurfacing improves femoral component alignment using a conventional jig.

Authors:  Zachary Morison; Akshay Mehra; Michael Olsen; Michael Donnelly; Emil Schemitsch
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  A low-volume surgeon is an independent risk factor for leg length discrepancy after primary total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study.

Authors:  Yuji Kishimoto; Hiroko Suda; Takahiro Kishi; Toshiaki Takahashi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.