Acetabular component position is considered a major factor affecting the etiology of hip dislocation. The ‘Lewinnek safe zone’ has been the most widely accepted range for component position to avoid hip dislocation, but recent studies suggest that this safe zone is outdated. We used a large prospective institutional registry to ask: 1) is there a ‘safe zone’ for acetabular component position, as measured on an anteroposterior radiograph, within which the risk of hip dislocation is low?, and 2) do other patient and implant factors affect the risk of hip dislocation? From 2007 to 2012, 19,449 patients (22,097 hip procedures) were recorded in an IRB approved prospective total joint replacement registry. All patients who underwent primary THA were prospectively enrolled, of which 9,107 patients consented to participate in the registry. An adverse event survey (80% compliance) was used to identify patients who reported a dislocation event in the six months after hip replacement surgery. Postoperative AP radiographs of hips that dislocated were matched with AP radiographs of stable hips, and acetabular position was measured using Ein Bild Röntgen Analyse software. Dislocators in radiographic zones (± 5°, ± 10°, ± 15° boundaries) were counted for every 1° of anteversion and inclination angles.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Limb alignment after unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a significant impact on surgical outcomes. The literature lacks studies that evaluate the limb alignment after lateral UKA or compare alignment outcomes between medial and lateral UKA. In this study, we retrospectively compare a single surgeon's alignment outcomes between medial and lateral UKA using a robotic-guided protocol. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using the same planning software and robotic guidance for execution of the surgical plan. The senior surgeon's prospective database was reviewed to identify patients who had 1) undergone medial or lateral UKA for unicompartmental osteoarthritis; and 2) had adequate pre- and post-operative full-length standing radiographs. There were 229 medial UKAs and 37 lateral UKAs in this study. Mechanical limb alignment was measured in standing long limb radiographs both pre- and post-operatively. Intra-operatively, limb alignment was measured using the computer assisted navigation system. The primary outcome was over-correction of the mechanical alignment (i.e, past neutral). Our secondary outcome was the difference between the radiographic post-operative alignment and the intra-operative “virtual” alignment as measured by the computer navigation system. This allowed an assessment of the accuracy of our navigation system for predicting post-operative limb alignment after UKA.Introduction
Methods
Two fixed bearing options exist for tibial resurfacing when performing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Inlay components are polyethylene-only implants inserted into a carved pocket on the tibial surface, relying upon the subchondral bone to support the implant. Onlay components have a metal base plate and are placed on top of a flat tibial cut, supported by a rim of cortical bone. To our knowledge, there is no published report that compares the clinical outcomes of these two implants using a robotically controlled surgical technique. We performed a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with Inlay versus Onlay components, using a robotic-guided protocol. All surgeries were performed using the same planning software and robotic guidance for execution of the surgical plan (Mako Surgical, Fort Lauderdale, FL). The senior surgeon's prospective database was reviewed to identify patients with 1) medial-sided UKA and 2) at least two years of clinical follow up. Eighty-six patients met these inclusion/exclusion criteria: 41 Inlays and 45 Onlays. Five patients underwent a secondary or revision procedure during the follow up period and were considered separately. Our primary outcome was the WOMAC score, subcategorized by the Pain, Stiffness, and Function sub-scores. The secondary outcome was need for secondary surgery. Continuous variables were analyzed using the two-tailed Student's t-test; categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.Introduction:
Methods:
