Mixed Reality has the potential to improve accuracy and reduce required dissection for the performance of peri-acetabular osteotomy. The current work assesses initial proof of concept of MR guidance for PAO. A PAO planning module, based on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging, allows for the planning of PAO cut planes and repositioning of the acetabular fragment. 3D files (holograms) of the cut planes and native and planned acetabulum positions are exported with the associated spatial information. The files are then displayed on mixed reality head mounted device (HoloLens2, Microsoft) following intraoperative registration using an FDA-cleared mixed reality application designed primary for hip arthroplasty (HipInsight). PAO was performed on both sides of a bone model (Pacific Research). The osteotomies and acetabular reposition were performed in accordance with the displayed holograms. Post-op CT imaging was performed for analysis. Cutting plane-accuracy was evaluated using a best-fit plane and 2D angles (°) between the planned and achieved supra (SA)- and retroacetabular (RA) osteotomy and retroacetabular and ischial osteotomies (IO) were measured. To evaluate the accuracy of acetabular reorientation, we digitized the acetabular rim and calculated the acetabular opening plane. Absolute errors of planned and achieved operative inclination and anteversion (°) of the acetabular fragment, as well as 3D lateral-center-edge (LCE) angles were calculated. The mean absolute difference between the planned and performed osteotomy angles was 3 ± 3°. The mean absolute error between planned and achieved operative anteversion and inclination was 1 ± 0° and 0 ± 0° respectively. Mean absolute error between planned and achieved 3D LCE angle was 0.5 ± 0.7°. Mixed-reality guidance for the performance of pelvic osteotomies and acetabular fragment reorientation was feasible and highly accurate. This solution may improve the current standard of care by enabling reliable and precise reproduction of the desired acetabular realignment.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors? This was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples Aims
Methods
To investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies, we asked: (1) Is there a difference in APP-PT between symptomatic young patients eligible for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? (2) Does APP-PT vary between distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? (3) Does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors? IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, case-control, comparative study in 388 symptomatic hips (357) patients (mean age 26 ± 2 years [range 23 to 29], 50% females) that presented to our tertiary center for joint preservation over a five year-period. Patients were allocated to 12 different morphologic subgroups. The overall study group was compared to a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips (20 patients). APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on AP pelvis X-rays using the validated HipRecon software. Values between overall and control group were compared using an independent samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of APP-PT was defined as >1 standard deviation. No significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and overall group (1.1 ± 3.0° [−4.9 to 5.9] vs 1.8 ± 3.4° [−6.9 to 13.2], p = 0.323) were observed. Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher APP-PT compared to the control group (both p < 0.05) and were the only diagnoses with significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. However, all observed differences were below the MCID. Demographic factors age, gender, height, weight and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT. APP-PT across different hip pathomorphologies showed no clinically significant variation. It does not appear to be a relevant contributing factor in the evaluation of young patients eligible for hip preservation surgery.
