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.
Total Hip Arthroplasty has been shown to have excellent long term outcomes, yet early reoperation remains a risk. The current study assesses the incidence, causes, and cost associated with early revision following elective primary THA in the US Medicare population. The study used the Limited Data Set (LDS) from the Centers for Medicate and Medicaid Services (CMS) to identify all primary THA (DRG 469/470) performed in the US (excluding Maryland) during 2016. All cases were followed for one year after the original date of operation to create a database of readmissions after surgery. These data allowed for the determination of the 1-year incidence and type of reoperation, the timing of reoperation, the admitting diagnosis, hospital utilization, and total cost.Introduction
Methods
The practice of alternating operating theatres has long been used to reduce surgeon idle time between cases. However, concerns have been raised as to the safety of this practice. We assessed the payments and outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed during overlapping and nonoverlapping days, also comparing the total number of the surgeon’s cases and the total time spent in the operating theatre per day. A retrospective analysis was performed on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Limited Data Set (LDS) on all primary elective TKAs performed at the New England Baptist Hospital between January 2013 and June 2016. Using theatre records, episodes were categorized into days where a surgeon performed overlapping and nonoverlapping lists. Clinical outcomes, economic outcomes, and demographic factors were calculated. A regression model controlling for the patient-specific factors was used to compare groups. Total orthopaedic cases and aggregate time spent operating (time between skin incision and closure) were also compared.Aims
Materials and Methods
Patient demand for hip and knee arthroplasty continues to rise. Information sources providing data on the volume and cost of Medicare total joint arthroplasty by hospital are of use to patients and healthcare professionals. Data have demonstrated that higher volume surgeons are associated with lower cost, morbidity, and mortality. The current study assesses if the same is true for hospitals. The Limited Data Set (LDS) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) were used for this study. All elective, DRG 470 Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) reported by CMS from the first quarter of 2013 through the second quarter of 2016 were included. Volume and part A Medicare payments over a 90-day period for the 20 highest volume hospitals in the US were analyzed. Cost associated with initial hospital stay and post discharge skilled nursing, home health, long term acute care, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and readmission was aggregated and analyzed. For each episode, demographic information (age, sex, and race), geographic location, and Elixhauser comorbidities were calculated to control for major confounding factors in the regression.Introduction
Methods
Navigation of acetabular component orientation is still not commonly performed despite repeated studies that show that more than ½ of acetabular components placed during hip arthroplasty are significantly mal-positioned and that intra-operative radiographic assessment is unreliable. The current study uses postoperative CT to assess the accuracy of a smart mechanical navigation instrument system for cup alignment. Thirty seven hip replacements performed using a smart mechanical navigation device (the HipXpert System) had post-operative CT studies available for analysis. These post-operative CT studies were performed for pre- operative planning of the contralateral side, one to three years following the prior surgery. An application specific software module was developed to measure cup orientation using CT (HipXpert Research Application, Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). The method involves creation of a 3D surface model from the CT data and then determination of an Anterior Pelvic Plane coordinate system. A multiplaner image viewer module is then used to create an image through the CT dataset that is coincident with the opening plane of the acetabular component. Points in this plane are input and then the orientation of the cup is calculated relative to the AP Plane coordinate space according to Murray's definitions of operative anteversion and operative inclination. The actual cup orientation was then compared to the goal of cup orientation recorded when the surgery was performed using the system for acetabular component alignment.Introduction
Patients and Methods
Cup malpositioning remains a common cause of dislocation, wear, osteolysis, and revision. The concept of a “Safe Zone” for acetabular component orientation was introduced more than 35 years ago1. The current study assesses CT studies of replaced hips to assess the concept of a safe zone for acetabular orientation by comparing the orientation of acetabular components revised due to recurrent instability and to a series of stable hip replacements. Cup orientation in 50 hips revised for recurrent instability was measured using CT. These hips were compared to a group of 184 stable hips measured using the same methods. Femoral anteversion in the stable hips was also measured. Images to assess femoral anteversion in the unstable group were not available. An application specific software modules was developed to measure cup orientation using CT (HipSextant Research Application 1.0.13 Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). The cup orientation was determined by first identifying Anterior Pelvic Plane Coordinate system landmarks on a 3D surface model. A multiplanar reconstruction module then allowed for the creation of a plane parallel with the opening plane of the acetabulum. The orientation of the cup opening plane in the AP Plane coordinate space was calculated according to Murray's definitions of operative anteversion and operative inclination2. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position3 were calculated.Introduction
Methods
