Aims. Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions. Methods. A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed. Results. CTAC positioning was generally accurate, with minor deviations in cup inclination (mean 2.7°; SD 2.84°), anteversion (mean 3.6°; SD 5.04°), and rotation (mean 2.1°; SD 2.47°). Deviation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) showed a mean vector length of 5.9 mm (SD 7.24). Flange positions showed small deviations, with the ischial flange exhibiting the largest deviation (mean vector length of 7.0 mm; SD 8.65). Overall, 83% of the implants were accurately positioned, with 17% exceeding malpositioning thresholds. CTACs used in tumour resections exhibited higher positioning accuracy than rTHA cases, with significant differences in inclination (1.5° for tumour vs 3.4° for rTHA) and rotation (1.3° for tumour vs 2.4° for rTHA). The use of intraoperative navigation appeared to enhance positioning accuracy, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. This study demonstrates favourable CTAC positioning accuracy, with potential for improved accuracy through intraoperative navigation. Further research is needed to understand the implications of
The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for primary THAs (2008 to 2017) which were categorized into RA-THA, CA-THA, and M-THA. Past and projected use, demographic characteristics distribution, income, type of insurance, location, and healthcare setting were compared among the three cohorts. In-hospital complications, LOS, discharge disposition, and in-hospital costs were compared between propensity score-matched cohorts of M-THA versus RA-THA and M-THA versus CA-THA to adjust for baseline characteristics and comorbidities.Aims
Methods
The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA. A total of 40 patients undergoing rTHA were propensity score matched to 80 patients undergoing mTHA for OA. Patients were matched for age, sex, and preoperative function. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected pre- and postoperatively (mean 10 months (SD 2.2) in rTHA group and 12 months (SD 0.3) in mTHA group). In addition, patient satisfaction was collected postoperatively. Component accuracy was assessed using Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, and restoration of leg length were assessed radiologically.Aims
Methods
