Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement when using robotic assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and Methods. A total of 20 patients underwent a planned THA using preoperative CT scans and robotic-assisted software. There were nine men and 11 women (n = 20 hips) with a mean age of 60.8 years (. sd. 6.0). Pelvic and femoral bone models were constructed by segmenting both preoperative and postoperative CT scan images. The preoperative anatomical landmarks using the robotic-assisted system were matched to the postoperative 3D reconstructions of the pelvis. Acetabular and femoral component positions as measured intraoperatively and postoperatively were evaluated and compared. Results. The system reported accurate values for reconstruction of the hip when compared to those measured postoperatively using CT. The mean deviation from the executed overall hip length and offset were 1.6 mm (. sd. 2.9) and 0.5 mm (. sd. 3.0), respectively. Mean combined anteversion was similar and correlated between intraoperative measurements and postoperative CT measurements (32.5°, . sd. 5.9° versus 32.2°, . sd. 6.4°; respectively; R. 2. = 0.65; p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between mean intraoperative (40.4°, . sd. 2.1°) acetabular component inclination and mean measured postoperative inclination (40.12°, . sd. 3.0°, R. 2. = 0.62; p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between mean intraoperative version (23.2°, . sd. 2.3°), and postoperatively measured version (23.0°, . sd. 2.4°; R. 2. = 0.76; p < 0.001). Preoperative and postoperative femoral component anteversion were significantly correlated with one another (R. 2. = 0.64; p < 0.001). Three patients had CT scan measurements that differed substantially from the intraoperative robotic measurements when evaluating stem anteversion. Conclusion. This is the first study to evaluate the success of hip reconstruction overall using robotic-assisted THA. The overall hip reconstruction obtained in the operating theatre using robotic assistance accurately correlated with the postoperative component position assessed independently using CT based 3D modelling. Clinical correlation during surgery should continue to be practiced and compared with observed intraoperative robotic values. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1303–9

Aims

The aim of the study was to investigate whether the primary stability of press-fit acetabular components can be improved by altering the impaction procedure.

Aims

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs bone strength and is a significant risk factor for hip fracture, yet currently there is no reliable tool to assess this risk. Most risk stratification methods rely on bone mineral density, which is not impaired by diabetes, rendering current tests ineffective. CT-based finite element analysis (CTFEA) calculates the mechanical response of bone to load and uses the yield strain, which is reduced in T2DM patients, to measure bone strength. The purpose of this feasibility study was to examine whether CTFEA could be used to assess the hip fracture risk for T2DM patients.

Aims

Arthroplasty skills need to be acquired safely during training, yet operative experience is increasingly hard to acquire by trainees. Virtual reality (VR) training using headsets and motion-tracked controllers can simulate complex open procedures in a fully immersive operating theatre. The present study aimed to determine if trainees trained using VR perform better than those using conventional preparation for performing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

There is an increased risk of fracture following osteoplasty of the femoral neck for cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Resection of up to 30% of the anterolateral head–neck junction has previously been considered to be safe, however, iatrogenic fractures have been reported with resections within these limits. We re-evaluated the amount of safe resection at the anterolateral femoral head–neck junction using a biomechanically consistent model.

In total, 28 composite bones were studied in four groups: control, 10% resection, 20% resection and 30% resection. An axial load was applied to the adducted and flexed femur. Peak load, deflection at time of fracture and energy to fracture were assessed using comparison groups.

There was a marked difference in the mean peak load to fracture between the control group and the 10% resection group (p < 0.001). The control group also tolerated significantly more deflection before failure (p < 0.04). The mean peak load (p = 0.172), deflection (p = 0.547), and energy to fracture (p = 0.306) did not differ significantly between the 10%, 20%, and 30% resection groups.

Any resection of the anterolateral quadrant of the femoral head–neck junction for FAI significantly reduces the load-bearing capacity of the proximal femur. After initial resection of cortical bone, there is no further relevant loss of stability regardless of the amount of trabecular bone resected.

Based on our findings we recommend any patients who undergo anterolateral femoral head–neck junction osteoplasty should be advised to modify their post-operative routine until cortical remodelling occurs to minimise the subsequent fracture risk.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1214–19.

We report the kinematic and early clinical results of a patient- and observer-blinded randomised controlled trial in which CT scans were used to compare potential impingement-free range of movement (ROM) and acetabular component cover between patients treated with either the navigated ‘femur-first’ total hip arthroplasty (THA) method (n = 66; male/female 29/37, mean age 62.5 years; 50 to 74) or conventional THA (n = 69; male/female 35/34, mean age 62.9 years; 50 to 75). The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Harris hip score, the Euro-Qol-5D and the Mancuso THA patient expectations score were assessed at six weeks, six months and one year after surgery. A total of 48 of the patients (84%) in the navigated ‘femur-first’ group and 43 (65%) in the conventional group reached all the desirable potential ROM boundaries without prosthetic impingement for activities of daily living (ADL) in flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and rotation (p = 0.016). Acetabular component cover and surface contact with the host bone were > 87% in both groups. There was a significant difference between the navigated and the conventional groups’ Harris hip scores six weeks after surgery (p = 0.010). There were no significant differences with respect to any clinical outcome at six months and one year of follow-up. The navigated ‘femur-first’ technique improves the potential ROM for ADL without prosthetic impingement, although there was no observed clinical difference between the two treatment groups.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:890–8.

The computed neck-shaft angle and the size of the femoral component were recorded in 100 consecutive hip resurfacings using imageless computer-navigation and compared with the angle measured before operation and with actual component implanted. The reliability of the registration was further analysed using ten cadaver femora. The mean absolute difference between the measured and navigated neck-shaft angle was 16.3° (0° to 52°). Navigation underestimated the measured neck-shaft angle in 38 patients and the correct implant size in 11. Registration of the cadaver femora tended to overestimate the correct implant size and provided a low level of repeatability in computing the neck-shaft angle.

Prudent pre-operative planning is advisable for use in conjunction with imageless navigation since misleading information may be registered intraoperatively, which could lead to inappropriate sizing and positioning of the femoral component in hip resurfacing.

We have developed a CT-based navigation system using infrared light-emitting diode markers and an optical camera. We used this system to perform cementless total hip replacement using a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing couple in 53 patients (60 hips) between 1998 and 2001. We reviewed 52 patients (59 hips) at a mean of six years (5 to 8) postoperatively. The mid-term results of total hip replacement using navigation were compared with those of 91 patients (111 hips) who underwent this procedure using the same implants, during the same period, without navigation. There were no significant differences in age, gender, diagnosis, height, weight, body mass index, or pre-operative clinical score between the two groups. The operation time was significantly longer where navigation was used, but there was no significant difference in blood loss or navigation-related complications. With navigation, the acetabular components were placed within the safe zone defined by Lewinnek, while without, 31 of the 111 components were placed outside this zone. There was no significant difference in the Merle d’Aubigne and Postel hip score at the final follow-up. However, hips treated without navigation had a higher rate of dislocation. Revision was performed in two cases undertaken without navigation, one for aseptic acetabular loosening and one for fracture of a ceramic liner, both of which showed evidence of neck impingement on the liner. A further five cases undertaken without navigation showed erosion of the posterior aspect of the neck of the femoral component on the lateral radiographs. These seven impingement-related mechanical problems correlated with malorientation of the acetabular component. There were no such mechanical problems in the navigated group.

We conclude that CT-based navigation increased the precision of orientation of the acetabular component and control of limb length in total hip replacement, without navigation-related complications. It also reduced the rate of dislocation and mechanical problems related to impingement.

We have undertaken a prospective, randomised study to compare conservation of acetabular bone after total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. We randomly assigned 210 hips to one of the two treatment groups. Uncemented, press-fit acetabular components were used for both.

No significant difference was found in the mean diameter of acetabular implant inserted in the groups (54.74 mm for total hip replacement and 54.90 mm for resurfacing arthroplasty). In seven resurfacing procedures (6.8%), the surgeon used a larger size of component in order to match the corresponding diameter of the femoral component.

With resurfacing arthroplasty, conservation of bone is clearly advantageous on the femoral side. Our study has shown that, with a specific design of acetabular implant and by following a careful surgical technique, removal of bone on the acetabular side is comparable with that of total hip replacement.