Literature DB >> 23385606

The First SICOT Oral Presentation Award 2011: imageless computer-assisted femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing: a prospective randomised trial.

Maik Stiehler1, Jens Goronzy, Albrecht Hartmann, Frank Krummenauer, Klaus-Peter Günther.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of imageless computer-assisted surgery (CAS) on the accuracy of positioning of the femoral component and on the short-term clinical outcome in hip resurfacing (HR) using a randomised prospective design.
METHODS: A total of 75 consecutive patients undergoing HR were randomly allocated to CAS and conventional implantation, respectively. Preoperatively and six months post-operatively standardised pelvic anteroposterior X-ray images, the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Harris Hip Score and the EQ-5D utility index were evaluated in a blinded manner. The primary end point of the study was a post-operative femoral component malpositioning in five degrees or more either varus or valgus absolute deviation from the planned stem shaft angle.
RESULTS: Patient demographics and algofunctional scores did not differ between the CAS and conventional implantation samples. Using CAS fewer femoral components were positioned in five or more degrees absolute deviation (4/37 vs 12/38, Fisher's exact p = 0.047; 95 % confidence interval for the primary end point's incidence difference: +3 %; +39 %); the respective incidences of five or more degrees of varus deviation were 0/37 vs 5/38. One conversion to a stemmed prosthesis (CAS group) was performed for periprosthetic femoral neck fracture. Radiological signs of superolateral femoral neck/implant impingement were observed in two cases (one CAS-based and one conventional implantation).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of femoral HR component positioning was significantly improved using CAS. However, one major complication necessitated early revision in the CAS group at six months of observation. Apart from that adverse event no inter-group differences were observed for the short-term clinical outcome. Future studies need to address the clinical long-term relevance of CAS in HR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23385606      PMCID: PMC3609971          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1762-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  49 in total

1.  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

2.  Computer-assisted placement technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: improvement in accuracy?

Authors:  S Krüger; P Y Zambelli; P-F Leyvraz; B M Jolles
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-08-24       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Imageless navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty increases the implant accuracy.

Authors:  C Schnurr; J W P Michael; P Eysel; D P König
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements.

Authors:  Ian J Leslie; Sophie Williams; Graham Isaac; Eileen Ingham; John Fisher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Computer-assisted vs conventional mechanical jig technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jose Rafael E Resubal; David A F Morgan
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Does computer-assisted surgery improve accuracy and decrease the learning curve in hip resurfacing? A radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Thorsten M Seyler; Lawrence P Lai; Denise I Sprinkle; William G Ward; Riyaz H Jinnah
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: the effect of alignment of the femoral component.

Authors:  E T Davis; M Olsen; R Zdero; J P Waddell; E H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-11

8.  Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement.

Authors:  R De Haan; C Pattyn; H S Gill; D W Murray; P A Campbell; K De Smet
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-10

9.  Position of hip resurfacing component affects strain and resistance to fracture in the femoral neck.

Authors:  Thomas Parker Vail; Richard R Glisson; David E Dominguez; Kenichi Kitaoka; Danielle Ottaviano
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing with and without navigation.

Authors:  Muthu Ganapathi; Pascal-André Vendittoli; Martin Lavigne; Klaus-Peter Günther
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-05-17       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of surgical experience on imageless computer-assisted femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing--a preclinical study.

Authors:  Maik Stiehler; Jens Goronzy; Stephan Kirschner; Albrecht Hartmann; Torsten Schäfer; Klaus-Peter Günther
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 2.175

Review 2.  Do outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of joint replacement surgery fulfil the OMERACT 2.0 Filter? A review of the 2008 and 2013 literature.

Authors:  Peter D H Wall; Bethan L Richards; Andrew Sprowson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-30

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.