scholarly journals A new mini-navigation tool allows accurate component placement during anterior total hip arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol Volume 11 ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javad Parvizi ◽  
Jessica R Benson ◽  
Jeffrey M Muir
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Navigation Tool

Using Intraoperative Pelvic Landmarks for Acetabular Component Placement in Total Hip Arthroplasty

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 832-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas G. Sotereanos ◽  
Mark C. Miller ◽  
Brett Smith ◽  
Robert Hube ◽  
Jeffrey J. Sewecke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip

Does Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Improve Accuracy of Cup Positioning?

2019 ◽  
Vol 03 (04) ◽  
pp. 176-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A. Lawson ◽  
Andrew T. Garber ◽  
Jeffrey D. Stimac ◽  
Rama Ramakrishnan ◽  
Langan S. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Goal Alignment ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Hip Replacements ◽  
Cup Positioning

AbstractAcetabular component malpositioning is a frequent cause of complications in total hip arthroplasty including instability, increased wear, osteolysis, impingement, and revision surgery. Recently, robotics and navigation have been introduced to improve cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of postoperative acetabular component positioning using MAKO robotic-assisted versus manual acetabular component placement. A consecutive series of 100 total hip replacements were performed in 100 patients. The first 50 were performed using manual techniques, while the second 50 were performed using MAKO-guided acetabular component placement. Postoperative anteroposterior pelvis radiographs were used to determine the postoperative anteversion and inclination of the cup relative to the goal of 15 and 45°, respectively. In the manual group, the average anteversion and inclination was 14.3 and 44.2°, respectively, with 28% within 5° and 82% within 10° of the goal alignment, respectively. In the robotic group, the average anteversion and inclination was 15.1 and 45.6°, respectively, with 54 and 88% within 5 and 10° of the goal alignment, respectively. This equated to a statistically significant improvement in the number of acetabular components placed within 5° of the target alignment with the use of robotic guidance (p = 0.0142). From the authors' study, they were able to demonstrate a significant improvement in acetabular component alignment with the use of robotic techniques. Additional studies are needed to demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes as a result of improved accuracy and precision of acetabular component placement.

Augmented Reality for Acetabular Component Placement in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1636-1641.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clayton Alexander ◽  
Alexander E. Loeb ◽  
Javad Fotouhi ◽  
Nassir Navab ◽  
Mehran Armand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip

Accuracy of Component Placement in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Orthopedics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Redmond ◽  
Asheesh Gupta ◽  
Jon E. Hammarstedt ◽  
Alexandra Petrakos ◽  
Christine E. Stake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip

scholarly journals Intraoperative evaluation of acetabular cup position during anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: are we accurately interpreting?

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitri E Delagrammaticas ◽  
George Ochenjele ◽  
Brett D Rosenthal ◽  
Benjamin Assenmacher ◽  
David W Manning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Acetabular Cup ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Value Measurement ◽  
Posterior Anterior

Introduction: Intraoperative radiographic evaluation during total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown to improve the accuracy of acetabular component placement, however, differences in interpretation based on radiographic technique has not been established. This study aims to determine if differences exist in the interpretation of acetabular component abduction and anteversion between different radiographic projections. Methods: 55 consecutive direct anterior THAs in 49 patients were prospectively enrolled. Target anteversion and abduction was defined by the Lewinnek zone. Fluoroscopy was used to direct acetabular component placement intraoperatively. After final cup implantation, fluoroscopic posterior-anterior hip and pelvis images were obtained for analysis. After completion of the procedure, an anterior-posterior plain pelvis radiograph was obtained in the operating room. Acetabulum component abduction and anteversion were postoperatively determined using specialised software on each of the 3 image acquisition methods. Results: Average acetabular cup abduction for intraoperative fluoroscopic posterior-anterior hip (FH), intraoperative fluoroscopic posterior-anterior pelvis (FP), and postoperative, standard, anteroposterior pelvis radiographs (PP) was 40.95° ± 2.87°, 38.87° ± 3.82° and 41.73° ± 2.96° respectively. The fluoroscopic hip and fluoroscopic pelvis tended to underestimate acetabular cup abduction compared to the postoperative pelvis ( p < 0.001). Average acetabular cup anteversion for FH, FP, and PP was 19.89° ± 4.87°, 24.38° ± 5.31° and 13.36° ± 3.52° respectively. Both the fluoroscopic hip and fluoroscopic pelvis overestimated anteversion compared to the AP pelvis, with a 6.38° greater mean value measurement for FH ( p < 0.001), and an 11° greater mean value measurement for FP ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Fluoroscopic technique and differences between radiographic projections may result in discrepancies in component position interpretation. Our results support the use of the fluoroscopic posterior-anterior hip as the choice fluoroscopic imaging technique.

scholarly journals Does Fluoroscopy Improve Acetabular Component Placement in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

2014 ◽  
Vol 472 (12) ◽  
pp. 3953-3962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon S. Beamer ◽  
Jordan H. Morgan ◽  
Christopher Barr ◽  
Michael J. Weaver ◽  
Mark S. Vrahas
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip

Patient-specific instrumentation improves the accuracy of acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty

2016 ◽  
Vol 98-B (10) ◽  
pp. 1342-1346 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Spencer-Gardner ◽  
J. Pierrepont ◽  
M. Topham ◽  
J. Baré ◽  
S. McMahon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Patient Specific Instrumentation

Comparison of Component Placement Accuracy Using Two Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Grid Technologies During Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 3601-3606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. Thorne ◽  
Scott T. Nishioka ◽  
Samantha N. Andrews ◽  
Kristin A. Mathews ◽  
Cass K. Nakasone
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Placement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Placement Accuracy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document