6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy improve postoperative radiographic component positioning and implant size in total hip arthroplasty utilizing a direct anterior approach?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has gained recent popularity, with 1 purported benefit being access to intraoperative fluoroscopy. However, there are limited data demonstrating improved component position with the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy. The aim of this study is to compare radiographic implant positioning on 2 consecutive cohorts of patients undergoing DAA THA performed by 1 surgeon either utilizing intraoperative fluoroscopy or not. We hypothesized that there would be no relevant radiographic differences between the cohorts.

          Methods

          Forty-two consecutive patients underwent DAA THA utilizing fluoroscopy (IFC), and 42 consecutive patients then underwent DAA THA without fluoroscopy (NFC). Using preoperative pelvis radiographs and 6-week postoperative pelvis radiographs, acetabular anteversion, inclination, femoral offset, and templated component sizes vs final intraoperatively selected sizes were recorded and compared between cohorts.

          Results

          Acetabular inclination was 45.0° for IFC and 45.6° for NFC ( P = .629). Femoral offset difference preoperatively and postoperatively was 0.8 mm for IFC and 1.3 mm for NFC ( P = .734). Number of hips within the so-called safe zone was 32 for IFC and 33 for NFC ( P = .794). These all demonstrated no significant difference between the cohorts. However, acetabular anteversion was 13.7° for IFC and 11.2° for NFC ( P = .02).

          Conclusions

          In this limited series, the routine use of intraoperative fluoroscopy did not improve implant positioning or sizing. This may be surgeon-specific or due to the result of the use of acetabular landmarks to guide placement of the components without fluoroscopy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table.

          Dislocation remains the leading early complication of total hip arthroplasty; surgical approach and implant positioning have been recognized as factors influencing total hip arthroplasty stability. We describe a total hip arthroplasty technique done through a single, tissue sparing anterior approach that allows implantation of the femoral and acetabular components without detaching or sectioning any of the muscles and tendons around the hip joint. A series of 437 consecutive, unselected patients who had 494 primary total hip arthroplasty surgeries done through an anterior approach on an orthopaedic table from September 1996 to September 2004 was reviewed. There were 54 hybrid and 442 uncemented hips in the 437 patients (57 bilateral). The average patient age was 64 years. Radiographic analysis showed an average abduction angle of 42 degrees , with 96% in the range of 35 degrees to 50 degrees abduction. The average cup anteversion was 19 degrees with 93% within the target range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees . Postoperative leg length discrepancy averaged 3 +/- 2 mm (range, 0-26 mm). Three patients sustained dislocations for an overall dislocation rate of 0.61%, and no patients required revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. There were 17 operative complications, including one deep infection, three wound infections, one transient femoral nerve palsy, three greater trochanter fracture, two femoral shaft fractures four calcar fractures, and three ankle fractures. Operative time averaged 75 minutes (range 40-150 minutes), and the average blood loss was 350 mL (range, 100-1300 mL). The mean hospital stay was 3 days (range, 1-17 days). The anterior approach on the orthopaedic table is a minimally invasive technique applicable to all primary hip patients. This technique allows accurate and reproducible component positioning and leg-length restoration and does not increase the rate of hip dislocation. Therapeutic study, Level IV-1 (case series). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study.

            Improper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery and Robotic Surgery in Total Hip Arthroplasty

              Various systems of computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) were reviewed. The first clinically applied system was an active robotic system (ROBODOC), which performed femoral implant cavity preparation as programmed preoperatively. Several reports on cementless THA with ROBODOC showed better stem alignment and less variance in limb-length inequality on radiographic evaluation, less incidence of pulmonary embolic events on transesophageal cardioechogram, and less stress shielding on the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis than conventional manual methods. On the other hand, some studies raise issues with active systems, including a steep learning curve, muscle and nerve damage, and technical complications, such as a procedure stop due to a bone motion during cutting, requiring re-registration and registration failure. Semi-active robotic systems, such as Acrobot and Rio, were developed for ease of surgeon acceptance. The drill bit at the tip of the robotic arm is moved by a surgeon's hand, but it does not move outside of a milling path boundary, which is defined according to three-dimensional (3D) image-based preoperative planning. However, there are still few reports on THA with these semi-active systems. Thanks to the advancements in 3D sensor technology, navigation systems were developed. Navigation is a passive system, which does not perform any actions on patients. It only provides information and guidance to the surgeon who still uses conventional tools to perform the surgery. There are three types of navigation: computed tomography (CT)-based navigation, imageless navigation, and fluoro-navigation. CT-based navigation is the most accurate, but the preoperative planning on CT images takes time that increases cost and radiation exposure. Imageless navigation does not use CT images, but its accuracy depends on the technique of landmark pointing, and it does not take into account the individual uniqueness of the anatomy. Fluoroscopic navigation is good for trauma and spine surgeries, but its benefits are limited in the hip and knee reconstruction surgeries. Several studies have shown that the cup alignment with navigation is more precise than that of the conventional mechanical instruments, and that it is useful for optimizing limb length, range of motion, and stability. Recently, patient specific templates, based on CT images, have attracted attention and some early reports on cup placement, and resurfacing showed improved accuracy of the procedures. These various CAOS systems have pros and cons. Nonetheless, CAOS is a useful tool to help surgeons perform accurately what surgeons want to do in order to better achieve their clinical objectives. Thus, it is important that the surgeon fully understands what he or she should be trying to achieve in THA for each patient.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplasty Today
                Elsevier
                2352-3441
                2352-3441
                28 December 2019
                March 2020
                28 December 2019
                : 6
                : 1
                : 94-98
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
                [b ]Colorado Joint Replacement, Porter Adventist Hospital, Denver, CO, USA
                [c ]Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, Barrington, IL, USA
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Porter Adventist Hospital, 2535 S Downing Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80210, USA. Tel.: 720-524-1367. roseannjohnson@ 123456centura.org
                Article
                S2352-3441(19)30150-5
                10.1016/j.artd.2019.11.006
                7083709
                32211483
                d361d352-aa82-457a-a9ce-2b5190b6a418
                © 2019 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 8 July 2019
                : 30 October 2019
                : 9 November 2019
                Categories
                Original Research

                direct anterior approach,total hip replacement,fluoroscopy,component positioning,component safe zone

                Comments

                Comment on this article