Background. The current orthopaedic literature demonstrates a clear relationship between acetabular component positioning, polyethylene wear and risk of dislocation following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Problems with edge loading, stripe wear and squeaking are also associated with higher acetabular inclination angles, particularly in hard-on-hard bearing implants. The important parameters of acetabular component positioning are depth, height, version and inclination. Acetabular component depth, height and version can be controlled with intra-operative reference to the transverse acetabular ligament. Control of acetabular component inclination, particularly in the lateral decubitus position, is more difficult and remains a challenge for the Orthopaedic Surgeon. Lewinnek et al described a ‘safe zone’ of acetabular component orientation: Radiological acetabular inclination of 40 ± 10° and radiological anteversion of 15 ± 10°. Accurate implantation of the acetabular component within the ‘safe zone’ of radiological inclination is dependent on operative inclination, operative version and pelvic position. Traditionally during surgery, the acetabular component has been inserted with an operative inclination of 45°. This assumes that patient positioning is correct and does not take into account the impact of operative anteversion or patient malpositioning. However, precise patient positioning in order to orientate acetabular components using this method cannot always be relied upon. Hill et al demonstrated a mean 6.9° difference between photographically simulated radiological inclination and the post-operative radiological inclination. The most likely explanation was felt to be adduction of the uppermost hemipelvis in the lateral decubitus position. The study changed the practice of the senior author, with target operative inclination now 35° rather than 40° as before, aiming to achieve a post-operative radiological inclination of 42° ± 5°. Aim. To determine which of the following three techniques of acetabular component implantation most accurately obtains a desired operative inclination of 35 degrees:. Freehand. Modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide, or. Digital inclinometer assisted. Methods. 270 patients undergoing primary uncemented THA were randomised to one of the three methods of acetabular component implantation. Target operative inclination for all three techniques was 35°. Operative inclination was measured intra-operatively using both a digital inclinometer and stereophotogrammetric system. For both the freehand and Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation techniques, the surgeon was blinded to intra-operative digital inclinometer readings. Results. The freehand implantation technique had an operative inclination range of 25.2 – 43.2° (Mean 32.9°, SD 2.90°). The modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation technique had an operative inclination range of 29.3 – 39.3° (Mean 33.7°, SD 1.89°). The digital inclinometer assisted technique had an operative inclination range of 27.5 – 37.5° (Mean 34.0°, SD 1.57°). Mean unsigned deviation from target 35° operative inclination was 2.92° (SD 2.03) for the freehand implantation technique, 1.83° (SD 1.41) for the modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation technique and 1.28° (SD 1.33) for the digital inclinometer assisted technique. Conclusions. When aiming for 35° of operative inclination, the digital inclinometer technique appears more accurate than either the freehand or Mechanical Alignment Guide techniques. In order to improve accuracy of acetabular component orientation during Total Hip Arthroplasty, the surgeon should consider using such a technique

INTRODUCTION. Acetabular cup malpositioning has been implicated in instability and wear-related complications after total hip arthroplasty. Although computer navigation and robotic assistance have been shown to improve the precision of implant placement, most surgeons use mechanical and visual guides to place acetabular components. Authors have shown that, when using a bean bag positioner, mechanical guides are misleading as they are unable to account for the variability in pelvic orientation during positioning and surgery. However, more rigid patient positioning devices may allow for more accurate free hand cup placement. To our knowledge, no study has assessed the ability of rigid devices to afford surgeons with ideal pelvic positioning throughout surgery. The purpose of this study is to utilize robotic-arm assisted computer navigation to assess the reliability of pelvic position in total hip arthroplasty performed on patients positioned with rigid positioning devices. METHODS. 100 hips (94 patients) prospectively underwent total hip Makoplasty in the lateral decubitus position from the posterior approach; 77 stabilized by universal lateral positioner, and 23 by peg board. After dislocation but prior to reaming, one fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeon manually placed the robotic arm parallel to both the longitudinal axis of the patient and the horizontal surface of the operating table, which, if the pelvis were oriented perfectly, would represent 0 degrees of anteversion and 0 degrees of inclination. The CT-templated computer software then generated true values of this perceived zero degrees of anteversion and inclination based on the position of the robot arm registered to a preoperative pelvic CT. Therefore, variations in pelvic positioning are represented by these robotic navigation generated values. To assure the accuracy of robotic measurements, cup anteversion and inclination at times of impaction were recorded and compared to those calculated via the trigonometric ellipse method of Lewinnek on standardized 3 months postoperative X-rays. RESULTS. Mean alteration in anteversion and inclination values were 1.7 degrees (absolute value 5.3 degrees, range −20 – 20 degrees) and 1.6 degrees (absolute value 2.6 degrees, range −8 – 10 degrees) respectively. 22% of anteversion values were altered by >10 degrees; 41% by > 5 degrees. There was no difference between positioners (p=0.36) and regression analysis revealed that anteversion differences were correlated with BMI (p=0.02). Robotic navigation acetabular cup anteversion (mean 21.8 degrees) was not different from postoperative X-ray anteversion (mean 21.9 degrees)(p=0.50), nor was robotic navigation acetabular cup inclination (mean 40.6 degrees) different from postoperative X-ray inclination (mean 40.5 degrees)(p=0.34). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. Rigid pelvic positioning devices present 5 to 20 degrees of variability in acetabular cup orientation, particularly with regards to anteversion. Compounding this with 20 degree safe zones and prior author demonstrations that human error is prone to 10 degrees of anteversion inaccuracy in a fixed pelvis model, there is a clear need to pay particular attention to anatomic landmarks or computer assisted techniques to assure accurate acetabular cup positioning. Patient positioning by itself should not be trusted

Introduction:. One of the primary goals in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is restoration of the mechanical alignment. The accuracy of conventional mechanical alignment guides and computer-assisted navigation systems has been extensively studied. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of a hand-held accelerometer-based navigation system for TKA. Methods:. Fifty three patients undergoing TKA utilizing the KneeAlign system (OrthAlign Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA) (Figure 1) were performed by two surgeons. Intraoperative data including tourniquet time, device assembly time, and resection times were recorded. Target alignment goals were 0° femoral, tibial, and overall mechanical coronal alignment and 3° femoral flexion and posterior tibial slope. Coronal/sagittal alignment of the implant and the mechanical axis were measured by two independent observers on full length (54 inch) postoperative hip to ankle radiographs. Results:. Average femoral coronal alignment was 0.29° varus ± 2.2° with 13% of patients exceeding 3° of varus/valgus. Average tibial coronal alignment was 0.25° valgus ± 1.4° with 4% of patients exceeding 3° of varus/valgus. Average femoral flexion angle was 87.2° and the average tibial posterior slope was 2.8° ± 1.8 °. Average postoperative mechanical axis was 0.2° varus ± 2.1°with 13% of patients exceeding 3° of varus/valgus (Figure 2). The average time to completion of femoral and tibial resection was 4.8 and 4.6 minutes, respectively, with an overall tourniquet time of 62 minutes. Conclusion:. The KneeAlign system was accurate for reestablishing the mechanical axis and the femoral and tibial component alignment in TKA without increasing surgical time. Accuracy was better for tibial than femoral resection, but overall superior to mechanical alignment guides and comparable to computer-assisted navigation

INTRODUCTION. While standard instrumentation tries to reproduce mechanical axes based on mechanical alignment guides, a new “shape matching” system derives its plan from kinematic measurements using pre-operative MRIs. The current study aimed to compare the resultant alignment in a matched pair cadaveric study between the Shape Match and a standard mechanical system. METHODS. A prospective series of Twelve (12) eviscerated torso's were acquired for a total of twenty four (24) limb specimens that included intact pelvises, femoral heads, knees, and ankles. The cadavers received MRI-scans, which were used to manufacture the Shape Match cutting guides. Additionally all specimen received “pre-operative” CT-scans to determine leg axes. Two (2) investigating surgeons performed total knee arthroplasties on randomly chosen sides by following the surgical technique using conventional instruments. On the contralateral sides, implantation of the same prosthesis was done using the Kinematic Shape Match Cutting Guides. A navigation system was used to check for leg alignement. Implant alignement was determined using post-operative CT-scans. For statistical analysis SPSS was used. RESULTS. In measurements using the navigation system, the overall alignment of the leg showed no significant differences between the two tested systems. This was also found in the CT-Measurements. In the Shape Match group the difference between the planned and the final implantation regarding overall limb alignment ranged between −0,5° (valgus) and 6° varus (p=0,518; CI −1,97°/1,05°). The leg alignement in the conventional group ranged between −2,5° and 13° varus (p=0,176; CI −4,93°/1,02). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. As expected, the two compared system employ different alignment strategies, which reflected in variations of the combinations of the three-dimensional component position on the femur and the tibia. These different strategies result in overall leg alignment that compares well between the two different methods, with fewer outliers in the Shape Match group

Introduction. Traditional methods of component positioning in total hip replacement (THR) utilize mechanical alignment guides which estimate position relative to the plane of the operating room table. However, variations in pelvic tilt alter the relationship between the anatomic plane of the pelvis and that of the table such that components placed in optimal position relative the table may not land within the classic anatomic “safe zone” described by Lewinnek. It has been suggested that navigation software should incorporate adjustments for the degree of pelvic tilt. Current imageless navigation software has this capability, however there is a paucity of data regarding the accuracy of this technology. Purpose. We aimed to assess the accuracy of intra-operative pelvic tilt adjusted anteversion measurements as compared to unadjusted measurements. Methods. 6-week post-operative Anteroposterior Pelvis radiographs from 27 consecutive primary THR were measured utilizing Ein-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse (EBRA-Cup®) hip analysis software (Figure 1) and a cross-table lateral radiograph (Figure 2). Inclination and anteversion values were recorded and direction of version was confirmed by assessment of cross-table lateral images. Values were compared with intra-operative measurements obtained via BrainLab® imageless navigation. Pelvic tilt adjusted and unadjusted anteversion measurements were recorded. Mean measurement error and standard error of the mean were determined and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. Results. Navigated component inclination correlated with EBRA-Cup® derived inclination measurements (r = 0.4308, p = 0.02) with a mean error of 3.8°. Similarly, pelvic tilt adjusted anteversion correlated with EBRA-Cup® derived measurements (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). The mean difference between anteversion measurements was 3.58° and the standard error of the mean was 0.58°. 24 of 27 patients had <6° of difference between the two measurements. Post-operative component position correlated more closely with pelvic tilt adjusted anteversion than with unadjusted values (r = 0.3, p = 0.12). As expected, this was most pronounced in patients with greater than 10 degrees of pelvic tilt (mean error of 11.2° vs. 4.5°). Conclusions. Imageless navigation based anteversion measurements are more accurate when adjusted for pelvic tilt