Literature DB >> 34651476

[Comparative study of intra- and post-operative inclination and anteversion angles of acetabular cup in robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty].

Run Tian1, Yutian Lei1, Kunzheng Wang1, Pei Yang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in the inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular cup measured by intraoperative robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) and postoperative X-ray films and CT imaging.
METHODS: The clinical data of 54 patients (54 hips) who underwent robot-assisted THA between May 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, there were 26 males (26 hips) and 28 females (28 hips), with an average age of 58.4 years (range, 39-71 years). The body mass index was 19.2-29.3 kg/m 2, with an average of 25.2 kg/m 2. All the patients had their first THA, including 31 cases of osteonecrosis of the femoral head, 12 cases of hip arthritis, 8 cases of femoral neck fracture, and 3 cases of developmental dysplasia of the hip. The anteversion and inclination angles of the acetabular cup were obtained through the surgical data in the robot host system. All patients underwent X-ray and CT scan examination within 2-7 days after operation to obtain the postoperative anteversion and inclination angles of the acetabular cup. According to the concept of "Lewinnek safe zone", the proportion of acetabular in the safe zone intra- and post-operation were compared.
RESULTS: The operation time was 57.8-89.2 minutes, with an average of 68.3 minutes; the intraoperative blood loss was 125.0-450.0 mL, with an average of 204.8 mL. No adverse events such as dislocation of hip joint and infection occurred during hospitalization. The anteversion angle of acetabular cup was (40.8±0.6)° during operation and (41.2±2.8)° after operation, with no significant difference ( t=1.026, P=0.307). The anteversion angle of acetabular cup measured during operation was (17.6±1.4)°, which was significantly smaller than that measured after operation (23.4±3.8)°( t=10.520, P=0.000). According to "Lewinnek safe zone", 54 hips (100%) were in the safety zone during operation, and 16 hips were out of the safety zone, 38 hips were in the safty zone after operation, the ratio of the hips in the safty zone was 70.4%, showing a significant difference ( χ 2=18.783, P=0.000).
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted THA can obtain accurate placement of the acetabular cup, but there is a large deviation between the anteversion angle of the acetabular cup in the lateral position during operation and the supine position after operation. Further study is needed to define the intraoperative placement position of the acetabular cup.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty; anteversion angle; inclination angle; safety zone

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34651476      PMCID: PMC8505950          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202107037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1002-1892


  12 in total

1.  What Safe Zone? The Vast Majority of Dislocated THAs Are Within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular Component Position.

Authors:  Matthew P Abdel; Philipp von Roth; Matthew T Jennings; Arlen D Hanssen; Mark W Pagnano
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  R P Robinson; P T Simonian; I M Gradisar; R P Ching
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-01

3.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties.

Authors:  G E Lewinnek; J L Lewis; R Tarr; C L Compere; J R Zimmerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nathan Ng; Paul Gaston; Philip M Simpson; Gavin J Macpherson; James T Patton; Nicholas D Clement
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  What is the Fate of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Acetabular Component Orientation When Evaluated in the Standing Position?

Authors:  John V Tiberi; Valentin Antoci; Henrik Malchau; Harry E Rubash; Andrew A Freiberg; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis.

Authors:  B M Jolles; P Zangger; P-F Leyvraz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Functional Safe Zone Is Superior to the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Why the Lewinnek Safe Zone Is Not Always Predictive of Stability.

Authors:  Taro Tezuka; Nathanael D Heckmann; Russell J Bodner; Lawrence D Dorr
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Standing or supine x-rays after total hip replacement - when is the safe zone not safe?

Authors:  John Au; Diana M Perriman; Teresa M Neeman; Paul N Smith
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 2.135

9.  Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with 28 and 32-mm femoral head.

Authors:  Einar Amlie; Øystein Høvik; Olav Reikerås
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-05-27

10.  The validity and reproducibility of cross table radiographs compared with CT scans for the measurement of anteversion of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  A Pankaj; A Mittal; A Chawla
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.