Re-revision due to instability and dislocation can occur in up to 1 in 4 cases following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Optimal placement of components during revision surgery is thus critical in avoiding re-revision. Computer-assisted navigation has been shown to improve the accuracy and precision of component placement in primary THA; however, its role in revision surgery is less well documented. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of computer-assisted navigation on component placement in revision total hip arthroplasty, as compared with conventional surgery. To examine the effect of navigation on acetabular component placement in revision THA, we retrospectively reviewed data from a multi-centre cohort of 128 patients having undergone revision THA between March 2017 and January 2019. An imageless computer navigation device (Intellijoint HIP®, Intellijoint Surgical, Kitchener, ON, Canada) was utilized in 69 surgeries and conventional methods were used in 59 surgeries. Acetabular component placement (anteversion, inclination) and the proportion of acetabular components placed in a functional safe zone (40° inclination/20° anteversion) were compared between navigation assisted and conventional THA groups.Introduction
Methods
A variety of surgical approaches are used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), all with reported advantages and disadvantages. A number of common complications can occur following THA regardless of the approach used. The purpose of this study was to compare five commonly used surgical approaches with respect to the incidence of surgery-related complications. The electronic medical records of all patients who underwent primary elective THA at a single large-volume arthroplasty centre, between 2011 and 2016, with at least two years of follow-up, were reviewed. After exclusion, 3574 consecutive patients were included in the study. There were 1571 men (44.0%) and 2003 women (56.0%). Their mean age and body mass index (BMI) was 63.0 years (Aims
Patients and Methods
