Literature DB >> 18972176

Component alignment in hip resurfacing using computer navigation.

Chris Bailey1, Rehan Gul, Mark Falworth, Steven Zadow, Roger Oakeshott.   

Abstract

The use of computer navigation during hip resurfacing has been proposed to reduce the risk of a malaligned component and notching with subsequent postoperative femoral neck fracture. Femoral component malalignment and notching have been identified as the major factors associated with femoral neck fracture after hip resurfacing. We performed 37 hip resurfacing procedures using an imageless computer navigation system. Preoperatively, we generated a patient-specific computer model of the proximal femur and planned a target angle for placement of the femoral component in the coronal plane. The mean navigation angle after implantation (135.5 degrees) correlated with the target stem-shaft angle (135.4 degrees). After implantation, the mean stem-shaft angle of the femoral component measured by three-dimensional computed tomography (135.1 degrees) correlated with the navigation target stem-shaft angle (135.4 degrees). The computer navigation system generates a reliable model of the proximal femur. It allows accurate placement of the femoral component and provides precise measurement of implant alignment during hip resurfacing, thereby reducing the risk of component malpositioning and femoral neck notching.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18972176      PMCID: PMC2650050          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0584-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  26 in total

1.  Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years.

Authors:  R B C Treacy; C W McBryde; P B Pynsent
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

2.  Notching of the femoral neck during resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a vascular study.

Authors:  P E Beaulé; P A Campbell; R Hoke; F Dorey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-01

3.  Computer-assisted femoral head resurfacing.

Authors:  Antony J Hodgson; Kevin B Inkpen; Mark Shekhman; Carolyn Anglin; Jerome Tonetti; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz; Nelson V Greidanus
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  2005 Sep-Nov

4.  Comparison of conventional versus computer-navigated acetabular component insertion.

Authors:  Rolf G A Haaker; Kai Tiedjen; Andreas Ottersbach; Frank Rubenthaler; Marthin Stockheim; James B Stiehl
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Fluoroscopic navigation system for hip surface replacement.

Authors:  Peter Belei; Adrian Skwara; Matías De La Fuente; Erik Schkommodau; Susanne Fuchs; Dieter-C Wirtz; Christian Kämper; Klaus Radermacher
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  2007-05

6.  Accuracy of navigation-assisted acetabular component positioning studied by computed tomography measurements: methods and results.

Authors:  Thomas Ybinger; W Kumpan; H E Hoffart; B Muschalik; W Bullmann; K Zweymüller
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Enhanced acetabular component positioning through computer-assisted navigation.

Authors:  Thomas Ybinger; Wolfgang Kumpan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The accuracy of image-free computer navigation in the placement of the femoral component of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: a cadaver study.

Authors:  E T Davis; P Gallie; K Macgroarty; J P Waddell; E Schemitsch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-04

9.  Results of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing for Crowe type-I and II developmental dysplasia.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; John T Antoniades; Michel J Le Duff
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Early results and complications of surface replacement of the hip.

Authors:  M N Jolley; E A Salvati; G C Brown
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Current progress in patient-specific modeling.

Authors:  Maxwell Lewis Neal; Roy Kerckhoffs
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 11.622

2.  Error range in proximal femoral osteotomy using computer tomography-based navigation.

Authors:  Masaki Takao; Takashi Sakai; Hidetoshi Hamada; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  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

4.  Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Henry D Atkinson; Karanjeev S Johal; Charles Willis-Owen; Steven Zadow; Roger D Oakeshott
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 5.  Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty.

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

6.  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

7.  No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  M C Koper; M Reijman; E M van Es; J H Waarsing; H W J Koot; S B Keizer; I Jansen; F C van Biezen; J A N Verhaar; P K Bos
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.