Coronal malalignment has been proposed as a risk factor for mechanical failure after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In response to these concerns, technologies that provide intraoperative feedback to the surgeon about component positioning have been developed with the goal of reducing rates of coronal plane malalignment and improving TKA longevity. Imageless hand-held portable accelerometer technology has been developed to address some the limitations associated with other computer assisted navigation devices including line-of-sight problems, preoperative imaging requirements, extra pin sites, up-font capital expenditures, and learning curve. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and precision of a hand-held portable navigation system versus conventional instrumentation for tibial and femoral resections in TKA. This study was a single-surgeon, retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing TKA were divided into three groups: 1) tibial and femoral resections performed with conventional intra- and extramedullary resection guides (CON group; N=84), 2) a hand-held portable navigation system (KneeAlign, OrthoAlign Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA) for tibial resection only (TIBIA group; N=78), and 3) navigation for both tibial and distal femoral resections (BOTH group; N=80). Postoperative coronal alignment of the distal femoral and proximal tibial resection were measured based on the anatomic axis from standing AP radiographs and compared between the three groups for both precision and accuracy. Malalignment was considered to be greater than 3° varus/valgus from expected resection angle.Background
Methods
The outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia are variable. Historically, arthroscopic treatment of severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] < 18°) resulted in poor outcomes and iatrogenic instability. However, in milder forms of dysplasia, favorable outcomes have been reported. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femorocetabular impingement (FAI) in borderline dysplastic (BD) patients compared with a control group of non-dysplastic patients. Between March 2009 and July 2012, a BD group (LCEA 18°–25°) of 46 patients (55 hips) was identified. An age and sex-matched control group of 131 patients (152 hips) was also identified (LCEA 25°–40°). Patient-reported outcome scores, including the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), the Sport-specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), were collected pre-operatively, at 1, and 2 years. The mean LCEA was 22.4 ± 2.0° (range, 18.4°–24.9°) in the BD group and 31.0 ± 3.1° (range, 25.4°–38.7°) in the control group (p<0.001). The mean preoperative alpha angle was 66.3 ± 9.9° in the BD group and 61.7 ± 13.0° in the control group (p=0.151). Cam decompression was performed in 98.2% and 99.3% of cases in the BD and control groups. Labral repair was performed in 69.1% and 75.3% of the BD and control groups respectively, with 100% of patients having a complete capsular closure performed in both groups. At a mean follow-up of 31.3 ± 7.6 months (range, 23.1–67.3) in unrevised patients and 21.6 ± 13.3 months (range 4.7–40.6) in revised patients, there was significant improvement (p<0.001) in all patient reported outcome scores in both groups. Multiple regression analysis did not identify any significant differences between groups. Importantly, female sex did not appear to be a predictor for inferior outcomes. Two patients (4.3%) in the BD group and six patients (4.6%) in the control group required revision arthroscopy during the study period. Favorable outcomes can be expected following the treatment of impingement in borderline dysplastics when labral refixation and capsular closure are performed, with comparable outcomes to non-dysplastic patients. Further follow-up in larger cohorts is necessary to prove the durability and safety of hip arthroscopy in this challenging group and to further explore potential gender-related differences in outcome.
Neutral mechanical alignment in TKA has been shown to be an important consideration for survivorship, wear, and aseptic loosening. However, native knee anatomy is described by a joint line in 3° of varus, 2–3° of mechanical distal femoral valgus, and 2–3° of proximal tibia varus. Described kinematic planning methods replicate native joint alignment in extension without changing tibiofemoral alignment, but do not account for native alignment through a range of motion. An asymmetric TKA femoral component with a thicker medial femoral condyle and posterior condylar internal rotation paired with an asymmetric polyethylene insert aligns the joint line in 3° of varus while maintaining distal femoral and proximal tibial cuts perpendicular to mechanical axis. The asymmetric components recreate an anatomic varus joint line while avoiding tibiofemoral malalignment or femoral component internal rotation, a risk factor for patellofemoral maltracking. The study seeks to determine how many patients would be candidates for a kinematically planned knee without violating the principle of a neutral mechanical axis (0° ± 3°). A cohort comprised of 55 consecutive preoperative THA patients with asymptomatic knees and 55 consecutive preoperative primary unilateral TKA patients underwent simultaneous biplanar radiographic imaging. Full length coronal images from the thoracolumbar junction to the ankles were measured by two independent observers for the following: mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). Patients who met the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 87°±3°; and mMPTA 87°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with an asymmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Similarly, patients with the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 90°±3°; and mMPTA 90°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with a symmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis.Introduction
Methods
Postoperative dislocation remains a vexing problem for patients and surgeons following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is the commonest reason for revision THA in the US. Dual mobility (DM) THA implants markedly decrease the risk of THA instability. However, DM implants are more expensive than those used for conventional THA. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of DM implants compared to conventional bearing couples for unilateral primary THA using a computer model-based evaluation. A state-transition Markov computer simulation model was developed to compare the cost-utility of dual mobility versus conventional THA for hip osteoarthritis from a societal perspective (Figure 1). The model was populated with health outcomes and probabilities from registry and published data. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct costs were derived from the literature and from administrative claims data, and indirect costs reflected estimated lost wages. All costs were expressed in 2013 US dollars. Health and cost outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. The base case modeled a 65-year-old patient undergoing THA for unilateral hip osteoarthritis. A lifetime time horizon was analyzed. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Threshold, one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty.Introduction
Methods
Digital templating is a critical part of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA) that is increasingly used by orthopaedic surgeons as part of their preoperative planning process. Digital templating has been used as a method of reducing hospital costs by eliminating the need for acetate films and providing an accurate method of preoperative planning. Pre-operative templating can help anticipate and predict appropriate component sizes to help avoid postoperative leg length discrepancy, failure to restore offset, femoral fracture, and instability. A preoperative plan using digital radiographs for surgical templating for component size can improve intraoperative accuracy and precision. While templating on conventional and digital radiographs is reliable and accurate, the accuracy of templating on digital images acquired with a novel biplanar imaging system (EOS Imaging Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA) remains unknown. EOS imaging captures whole body images of a standing patient without stitching or vertical distortion, less magnification error and exposes patients to less radiation than a pelvis AP radiograph. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare EOS imaging and conventional anteroposterior (AP) xrays for preoperative digital templating for THA, and compare the results to the implant sizes used intraoperatively. Forty primary unilateral THA patients had preoperative supine AP xrays and standing EOS imaging. The mean age for patients was 61 ± 8 years, the mean body mass index 29 ± 6 kg/m2 and 21 patients were female. All patients underwent a THA with the same THA system (R3 Acetabular System and Synergy Cementless Stem, Smith & Nephew, TN, USA) by a single surgeon. Two blinded observers preoperatively templated using both AP xray and EOS imaging for each patient to predict acetabular size, femoral component size, and stem offset. All templating was performed by two observers with standard software (Ortho Toolbox, Sectra AB, Linköping, Sweden) [Figure 1] one week prior to surgery, and were compared using the Cronbach's alpha (∝) coefficient of reliability. The accuracy of templating was reported as the average percent agreement between the implanted size and the templated size for each component.Background
Methods
Sagittal pelvic tilt (PT) has been shown to effect the functional position of acetabular components in patients with total hip replacements (THR). This change in functional component position may have clinical implications including increased likelihood of wear or dislocation. Surgeons can use computer-assisted navigation intraoperatively to account for a patient's pelvic tilt and to adjust the position of the acetabular component. However, the accuracy of this technique has been questioned due to the concern that PT may change after THR. The purpose of this study was to measure the change in PT after THR, and to determine if preoperative clinical and radiographic parameters can predict PT changes after THR. 138 consecutive patients who underwent unilateral THR by one surgeon received standing bi-planar lumbar spine and lower extremity radiographs preoperatively and six weeks postoperatively. Patients with prior contralateral THR, conversion THR and instrumented lumbosacral fusions were excluded. PT and pelvic incidence (PI) were measured preoperatively for each patient, and PT was measured on the postoperative imaging. A negative value for PT indicated posterior pelvic tilt. Patient demographics were collected from the chart. Average age was 56.8±10.9 years, average BMI was 28.3±6.0 kg/m2, and 67 patients (48.6%) were female. Mean preoperative pelvic tilt was 0.6°±7.3° (range: −19.0° to 17.9°). We found greater than 10° of sagittal PT in 23 out of 138 (16.6%) patients in this sample. Mean post-operative pelvic tilt was 0.3°±7.4° (range: −18.4° to 15.0°). Mean change in pelvic tilt was −0.3°±3.6° (range: −9.6° to 13.5°). PT changed by less than 5° in 119 of 138 patients (86.2%). The mean difference in pre-operative and post-operative PT is not statistically significant (p = 0.395). Pre-operative PT was strongly correlated with post-operative PT (r2 = 0.88, p = 0.0001) (Figure 1). There was not a statistically significant relationship between PI and change in PT (r2 = −0.16, p = 0.06). In conclusion, based on the variability in pelvic tilt in this study population and the relatively small change in pelvic tilt following THA tilt-adjustment of the acetabular component position based on standing pre-operative imaging is likely to be of benefit in the majority of patients undergoing navigated THA. However, we have been unable to predict the relatively rare occurrence of a large change in pelvic tilt, which would confound tilt-adjusted component position.
Successful total joint arthroplasty requires accruate and reproducible acetabular component position. Acetabular component malposition has been associated with complications inlcuding dislocation, implant loosening, and increased wear. Recent literature had demonstrated that high-volume fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons are in the “safe zone” for cup inclination and anteversion only 47% of the time. (1) Computer navigation has improved accuracy and reproducibility but remains expensive and cumbersome to many hospital and physicians. Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) has been shown to be effective and efficient in total knee replacements. The purpose of this study was to determine in a cadaveric model the anteversion and inclination accuracy of acetabular guides compared to a pre-operitive plan. 8 fresh-frozen cadaveric pelvis specimens underwent Computer Tomography (CT) in order to create a 3D reconstruction of the acetabulum. Based on these 3D reconstruction, a pre-operative plan was made positioning the patient specific acetabulum guides at 40 degrees of inclination and 20 degrees of anteversion in the pelvis.(Figure 1) The guides were created based on the specific bony morphology of the acetabular notch and rim. The guides were created using a 3D printer which allowed for precise recreation of the virtual model. 7 cadaveric specimens underwent creation and implantation of a acetabular guide specific to each specimens bony morphology. Ligamentum, pulvinar, and labum were removed for each cadaver prior to implantation to prevent soft tissue obstruction. The guides were inserted into the acetabular notch with the final position based on the fit of the guide in the notch. (Figure 2) Post-implantation CT was then performed and inclination and anteversion of the implanted guide measured and compared to the preoperative plan.Introduction:
Methods:
