Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Cup orientation of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is critical for dislocation, range of motion, polyethylene wear, pelvic osteolysis, and component migration. But, substantial error under manual technique has been reported specially in revision THA due to a bone loss and poor anatomical landmark. We have used three kinds of navigation systems for cup positioning in primary and revision THA.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of navigation in revision THAs.
METHODS
Since 2005, consecutive 24 revision THAs were performed with volumetric post-operative CT scan images to measure three dimensional positionings of cups. We implanted cementless hemispherical cups in 14 hips using fluoro-based navigation (FN) system (Stealth Station Tria), in 5 hips using a CT-based navigation (CTN) system (VectorVision CT Hip 3.1) and in 5 hips using fluoro-CT-based navigation (FCTN) system (VectorVision CT Hip 3.5). For all the patients, volumetric post-operative CT scan was performed to measure 3D cup orientation. Using 3D image-processing software (JMM, Japan) we converted all data to radiographic angles to compare different navigation system.
RESULTS
The difference from target angles of anteversion was 5.6 ± 4.9 degrees. The absolute value of difference from target angles of inclination was 6.5 ± 3.8 degrees. The system accuracy was 4.2±2.9 in inclination and 4.7 ± 4.1. Accuracy of three navigation system was not significantly different. No postoperative dislocation was observed in this series. No complication related to navigation system was observed, either.
CONCLUSION
Cup malpositioning can easily occur with a conventional aligment guide especially in MIS THA due to complexity of a operation. In revision THAs, high incidence of malpositioning of cups and post operative dislocation were reported. We previously reported that navigation system improved the accuracy of acetabular component orientation in MIS THA comparing to manual technique. Conventional CT-based navigation system in revision THAs had two problems. First, it was difficult to get accurate surface registration because a presence of a bone loss prevented surface registration. Secondly, an artifact of CT images due to previous implants during a preoperative planning. For surgical approach (removal of implants), damages of bone easily occurred before surface registration. Damages of bone changed the landmarks for surface registration. These problems might lead the error of CT-based navigation system. On the other hand, FN and FCTN system does not need surface registration around acetabulum. This feature is great advantage to revision THA. Therefore, FN and FCTN system have theoritically would be friendlier for revision THA than CTN system. We also reported FCTN system showed superior accuracy than CTN system [2]. In the present study, there were no significant differences between three kinds of navigation systems. But, our volume of patients was too small to draw differences between systems. We need to continue this study to get more cases. However, in conclusion, an application of navigation system in revision THAs was effective and safe procedure to eliminates postoperative complications such as a malpositioning and post-operative dislocation,
