Numerous studies have reported the importance of acetabular component positioning in decreasing dislocation rates, the risk of liner fractures, and bearing surface wear in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The goal of improving acetabular component positioning has led to the development of computer-assisted surgical (CAS) techniques, and several studies have demonstrated improved results when compared to conventional, freehand methods. Recently, a computed tomography (CT)-based robotic surgery system has been developed (MAKO™ Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopaedic System, MAKO Surgical Corp., Fort Lauderdale, FLA, USA), with promising improvements in component alignment and surgical precision. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in predicting the postoperative acetabular component position between the MAKO™ robotic navigation system and an imageless, CAS system (AchieveCAS, Smith and Nephew Inc., Memphis, TN, USA). 30 THAs performed using the robotic navigation system (robotic cohort) were available for review, and compared to the most recent 30 THAs performed using the imageless, CAS system (CAS cohort). The final, intraoperative reading for acetabular abduction and anteversion provided by each navigation system was recorded following each THA. Einsel-Bild-Roentgen analysis was used to measure the acetabular component abduction and anteversion based on anteroposterior pelvis radiographs obtained at each patient's first, postoperative visit (Figure 1). Two observers, blinded to the treatment arms, independently measured all the acetabular components, and the results were assessed for inter-observer reliability. Comparing the difference between the final, intraoperative reading for both acetabular abduction and anteversion, and the radiographic alignment calculated using EBRA analysis, allowed assessment of the intraoperative predictive capability of each system, and accuracy in determining the postoperative acetabular component position. In addition, the number of acetabular components outside of the “safe zone” (40° + 10° of abduction, 15° + 10° of anteversion), as described by Lewinnek et al., was assessed. Lastly, the operative time for each surgery was recorded.Background:
Materials and Methods:
