Advertisement

A prospective clinical trial to assess the accuracy of an MRI-based patient-specific acetabular instrument guide in total hip arthroplasty

  • Daisuke Inoue
  • Tamon KabataEmail author
  • Hiroaki Kimura
  • Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 147 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to conduct a prospective clinical trial to investigate the accuracy of an MRI-based patient-specific acetabular instrument guide during THA.

Methods

We conducted a prospective consecutive review of 14 hips in 14 patients who underwent primary THA with a posterolateral approach between September 2016 and February 2018. All preoperative planning and postoperative evaluations were completed on CT-based templating software. A pelvic MRI was taken to create a patient-specific surgical instrument guide. In order to assess the effect of increased experience on accuracy, we divided the cases into two groups according to when surgery was performed and investigated the absolute error in the acetabular component angle between preoperative planning and the postoperative state for each of the groups.

Results

We did not experience postoperative complications such as implant early dislocation in any of the cases. The absolute errors of acetabular implant angle using the patient-specific instrument guide were 3.7° ± 2.2° inclination and 4.5° ± 3.9° anteversion. The absolute error of the initial group was 4.7° ± 2.1° inclination and 6.1° ± 4.0° anteversion; for the later group, it was 2.8° ± 1.8° inclination and 3.2° ± 2.9° anteversion. There was a significant difference in the absolute error of acetabular implant placement between the initial group and the later group.

Conclusions

We believe this study shows that MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation may be a useful alternative to surgical tracking during THA once the slight learning curve has been overcome.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Patient-specific instrument guide MRI Acetabular cup 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional ethical committee. In accordance with the requirements of this study, all patients were provided informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Devane PA, Wraighte PJ, Ong DCG, Horne JG (2012) Do joint registries report true rates of hip dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3003–3006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R (2003) Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 407:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP (1983) Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:151Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fackler CD, Poss R (1980) Dislocation in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 151:169Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B (2004) Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res 22(4):815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H (2011) The John Charnley award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grammatopoulos G, Pandit HG, da Assunção R, Taylor A, McLardy-Smith P, De Smet KA, Murray DW, Gill HS (2014) Pelvic position and movement during hip replacement. Bone Joint J 96-B(7):876–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inoue D, Kabata T, Maeda T, Kajino Y, Fujita K, Hasegawa K, Yamamoto T, Tsuchiya H (2015) Value of computed tomography-based three-dimensional surgical preoperative planning software in total hip arthroplasty with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci 20(2):340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kajino Y, Kabata T, Maeda T, Iwai S, Kuroda K, Tsuchiya H (2012) Does degree of the pelvic deformity affect the accuracy of computed tomography-based hip navigation? J Arthroplasty 27(9):1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Ike H, Kubota S, Saito T (2016) The current status and future prospects of computer-assisted hip surgery. J Orthop Sci 21(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugano N, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Miki H (2012) Does CT-based navigation improve the long-term survival in ceramic-on-ceramic THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3054–3059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paprosky WG, Muir JM (2016) Intellijoint HIP®: a 3D mini-optical navigation tool for improving intraoperative accuracy during total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices (Auckl) 18(9):401–408Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hananouchi T, Saito M, Koyama T, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H (2010) Tailor-made surgical guide reduces incidence of outliers of cup placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):1088–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shandiz MA, MacKenzie JR, Hunt S, Anglin C (2014) Accuracy of an adjustable patient-specific guide for acetabular alignment in hip replacement surgery (Optihip). Proc Inst Mech Eng H 228(9):876–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Small T, Krebs V, Molloy R, Bryan J, Klika AK, Barsoum WK (2014) Comparison of acetabular shell position using patient specific instruments versus standard surgical instruments: a randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty 29(5):1030–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kajino Y, Kabata T, Maeda T, Iwai S, Kuroda K, Fujita K, Tsuchiya H (2013) Strict component positioning is necessary in hip resurfacing. J Orthop Sci. 18(2):290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray DW (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(2):228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krismer M, Bauer R, Tschupik J, Mayrhofer P (1995) EBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components. J Biomech 28(10):1225–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bosker BH, Verheyen CC, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJ (2007) Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127(5):375–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorr LD, Malik A, Wan Z, Long WT, Harris M (2007) Precision and bias of imageless computer navigation and surgeon estimates for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:92–99Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kitada M, Nakamura N, Iwana D, Kakimoto A, Nishii T, Sugano N (2011) Evaluation of the accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation for femoral stem orientation and leg length discrepancy. J Arthroplasty 26(5):674–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spencer-Gardner L, Pierrepont J, Topham M, Baré J, McMahon S, Shimmin AJ (2016) Patient-specific instrumentation improves the accuracy of acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-B(10):1342–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daisuke Inoue
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tamon Kabata
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hiroaki Kimura
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical ScienceKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKanazawa Red Cross HospitalKanazawaJapan

Personalised recommendations