This study aimed to investigate whether the use of CT-based navigation enhances: 1) the accuracy of cup placement; and 2) the achievement rate of required range of motion (ROM). Additionally, we investigated the impact of using a large femoral head and dual-mobility liner on the achievement rates. This retrospective study analyzed 60 manual and 51 CT-based navigated primary total hip arthroplasties performed at a single facility. Postoperative CT scans and CT-based simulation software were employed to measure the cup orientation and to simulate the ROM. We compared the absolute errors for radiological inclination (RI) and radiological anteversion (RA) between the two groups. We also examined whether the simulated ROM met the required ROM criteria, defined as flexion > 110°, internal rotation > 30°, extension > 30°, and external rotation > 30°. Furthermore, we performed simulations with 36 mm femoral head and dual-mobility liner.Aims
Methods
Accurate cup placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the challenges due to distinctive bone deformity. Robotic-arm assisted system have been developed to improve the accuracy of implant placement. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic-arm assisted (Robo-THA), CT-based navigated (Navi-THA), and manual (M-THA) cup position and orientation in THA for DDH. A total of 285 patients (335 hips) including 202 M-THAs, 45 Navi-THAs, and 88 Robo-THA were analyzed. The choice of procedure followed the patient's preferences. Horizontal and vertical center of rotation (HCOR and VCOR) were measured for cup position, and radiographic inclination (RI) and anteversion (RA) were measured for cup orientation. The propensity score-matching was performed among three groups to compare the absolute error from the preoperative target position and angle. Navi-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors than M-THA in RI (3.6° and 5.4°) and RA (3.8° and 6.0°), however, there were no significant differences between them in HCOR (2.5 mm and 3.0 mm) or VCOR (2.2 mm and 2.6 mm). In contrast, Robo-THA showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup position than both M-THA and Navi-THA (HCOR: 1.7 mm and 2.9 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.6 mm and 2.5 mm vs. Navi-THA, VCOR:1.7 mm and 2.4 mm, vs. M-THA, 1.4 mm and 2.2 mm vs. Navi-THA). Robo-THA also showed significantly smaller absolute errors of cup orientation than both M-THA and Navi-THA (RI: 1.4° and 5.7°, vs. M-THA, 1.5° and 3.6°, vs. Navi-THA, RA: 1.9° and 5.8° vs. M-THA, 2.1° and 3.8° vs. Navi-THA). Robotic-arm assisted system showed more accurate cup position and orientation compared to manual and CT-based navigation in THA for DDH. CT-based navigation increased the accuracy of cup orientation compared to manual procedures, but not cup position.
