Computer-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves Acetabular Prosthesis Placement Accuracy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Abstract

Objective: The long-term effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) largely depends on the accuracy of acetabular prosthesis placement. To improve the accuracy of acetabular prosthesis placement, we utilized a new surgical navigation system: visual treatment solution (VTS). The purpose of this study was to verify the efficacy and safety of this system in assisting THA.

Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. One hundred and twenty-four patients undergoing primary THAs were included. The experimental group underwent VTS-assisted THA, and the control group underwent traditional surgical techniques. The main efficacy evaluation indicators were the proportion of anteversion and inclination angles in the Lewinnek safe zone, and secondary evaluation indicators included operation time, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score, Harris score, short-form-36 (SF-36) score, and hip dislocation rate. Statistical analysis was performed mainly by t-test and chi-square test.

Results: The proportion of both anteversion and inclination angles in the safe zone was 93.1% in the experimental group and 50.9% in the control group; the difference was significant (p < 0.01). The average operation time was 112.5 min in the experimental group and 92.6 min in the control group; the difference was significant (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in WOMAC score, Harris score, or SF-36 score between the experimental and control groups at 3 months after the operation (p > 0.05). The dislocation rate was 0% in the experimental group and 1.6% in the control group; the difference was not significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: VTS-assisted THA can significantly improve the accuracy of acetabular prosthesis placement. However, there were no differences in short-term clinical outcomes or dislocation rates between the two groups.

Keywords

Accuracy / Computer-Assisted Navigation / Cup Position / Safe Zone / Total Hip Arthroplasty

References

[1] Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplast. 1998; 13: 530–534.

[2] Georgiades G, Babis GC, Kourlaba G, Hartofilakidis G. Effect of cementless acetabular component orientation, position, and containment in total hip arthroplasty for congenital hip disease. J Arthroplast. 2010; 25: 1143–1150.

[3] Rowan FE, Benjamin B, Pietrak JR, Haddad FS. Prevention of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2018; 33: 1316–1324.

[4] Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60: 217–220.

[5] Sadhu A, Nam D, Coobs BR, Barrack TN, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Acetabular component position and the risk of dislocation following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplast. 2017; 32: 987–991.

[6] Danoff JR, Bobman JT, Cunn G, Murtaugh T, Gorroochurn P, Geller JA, et al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016; 31: 506–511.

[7] Sugano N. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013; 5: 1–9.

[8] Sai Sathikumar A, Jacob G, Thomas AB, Varghese J, Menon V. Acetabular cup positioning in primary routine total hip arthroplasty-a review of current concepts and technologies. Art Ther. 2023; 5: 59.

[9] Xu K, Li YM, Zhang HF, Wang CG, Xu YQ, Li ZJ. Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2014; 12: 528–533.

[10] Liu Z, Gao Y, Cai L. Imageless navigation versus traditional method in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015; 21: 122–127.

[11] Snijders T, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A. Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 13: 13.

[12] Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS, Alden KJ, Daley RJ, LaReau JM, et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 Total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplast. 2015; 30: 2208–2218.

[13] Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Simcox T, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Davidovitch RI. Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes? J Arthroplast. 2021; 36: 2801–2807.

[14] Lass R, Olischar B, Kubista B, Waldhoer T, Giurea A, Windhager R. Total hip arthroplasty using imageless computer-assisted navigation-2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 9.

[15] Keshmiri A, Schröter C, Weber M, Craiovan B, Grifka J, Renkawitz T. No difference in clinical outcome, bone density and polyethylene wear 5-7 years after standard navigated vs. conventional cementfree total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135: 723–730.

[16] Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A, Flecher X, Argenson JNA. No benefit after THA performed with computer-assisted cup placement: 10-year results of a randomized controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 2085–2093.

[17] Sugano N, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Miki H. Does CT-based navigation improve the long-term survival in ceramic-on-ceramic THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470: 3054–3059.

[18] Bohl DD, Nolte MT, Ong K, Lau E, Calkins TE, Della Valle CJ. Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101: 250–256.

[19] Agarwal S, Eckhard L, Walter WL, Peng A, Hatton A, Donnelly B, et al. The use of computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty is associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation: a study of 6, 912 navigated THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: 1900–1905.

[20] Murphy WS, Yun HH, Hayden B, Kowal JH, Murphy SB. The safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476: 325–335.

[21] Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 386–391.

[22] Tezuka T, Heckmann ND, Bodner RJ, Dorr LD. 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. J Arthroplast. 2019; 34: 3–8.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.