BACKGROUND: The stability of implants is vital to ensure a long-term survival. RSA determines micro-motions of implants as a predictor of early implant failure. RSA can be performed as a marker- or model-based analysis. So far, CAD and RE model-based RSA have not been validated for use in hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). MATERIALS/ METHODS: A phantom study determined the precision of marker-based and CAD and RE model-based RSA on a HRA implant. In a clinical study, 19 patients were followed with stereoradiographs until 5 years after surgery. Analysis of double-examination migration results determined the clinical precision of marker-based and CAD model-based RSA, and at the 5-year follow-up, results of the total translation (TT) and the total rotation (TR) for marker- and CAD model-based RSA were compared. RESULTS: The phantom study showed that comparison of the precision (SDdiff) in marker-based RSA analysis was more precise than model-based RSA analysis in TT (p CAD < 0.001; p RE = 0.04) and TR (p CAD = 0.01; p RE < 0.001). The clinical precision (double examination in 8 patients) comparing the precision SDdiff was better evaluating the TT using the marker-based RSA analysis (p = 0.002), but showed no difference between the marker- and CAD model-based RSA analysis regarding the TR (p = 0.91). Comparing the mean signed values regarding the TT and the TR at the 5-year follow-up in 13 patients, the TT was lower (p = 0.03) and the TR higher (p = 0.04) in the marker-based RSA compared to CAD model-based RSA. INTERPRETATION: The precision of marker-based RSA was significantly better than model-based RSA. However, problems with occluded markers lead to exclusion of many patients which was not a problem with model-based RSA. HRA were stable at the 5-year follow-up. The detection limit was 0.2 mm TT and 1° TR for marker-based and 0.5 mm TT and 1° TR for CAD model-based RSA for HRA.
BACKGROUND: The stability of implants is vital to ensure a long-term survival. RSA determines micro-motions of implants as a predictor of early implant failure. RSA can be performed as a marker- or model-based analysis. So far, CAD and RE model-based RSA have not been validated for use in hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). MATERIALS/ METHODS: A phantom study determined the precision of marker-based and CAD and RE model-based RSA on a HRA implant. In a clinical study, 19 patients were followed with stereoradiographs until 5 years after surgery. Analysis of double-examination migration results determined the clinical precision of marker-based and CAD model-based RSA, and at the 5-year follow-up, results of the total translation (TT) and the total rotation (TR) for marker- and CAD model-based RSA were compared. RESULTS: The phantom study showed that comparison of the precision (SDdiff) in marker-based RSA analysis was more precise than model-based RSA analysis in TT (p CAD < 0.001; p RE = 0.04) and TR (p CAD = 0.01; p RE < 0.001). The clinical precision (double examination in 8 patients) comparing the precision SDdiff was better evaluating the TT using the marker-based RSA analysis (p = 0.002), but showed no difference between the marker- and CAD model-based RSA analysis regarding the TR (p = 0.91). Comparing the mean signed values regarding the TT and the TR at the 5-year follow-up in 13 patients, the TT was lower (p = 0.03) and the TR higher (p = 0.04) in the marker-based RSA compared to CAD model-based RSA. INTERPRETATION: The precision of marker-based RSA was significantly better than model-based RSA. However, problems with occluded markers lead to exclusion of many patients which was not a problem with model-based RSA. HRA were stable at the 5-year follow-up. The detection limit was 0.2 mm TT and 1° TR for marker-based and 0.5 mm TT and 1° TR for CAD model-based RSA for HRA.