CT-based improved navigation system performance on the accuracy of implant placement in THA


Effect of improved navigation performance on the accuracy of implant placement in total hip arthroplasty with a CT-based navigation system, Nakahara, I., Kyo, T., Kuroda, Y. et al. J Artif Organs (2018).


A computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system is one of the support tools to place implant with appropriate alignment and position in total hip arthroplasty (THA). To determine whether the higher performance of the navigation would further improve the accuracy of implant placement in the clinical setting, we retrospectively compared the navigation accuracy of two different versions of a navigation system. The newer version of the navigation system had an upgraded optical sensor with superior positional accuracy. Navigation accuracy, defined as differences between postoperative measurements on CT images and intraoperative records on the navigation system, of 49 THAs performed with the newer version of the navigation system was compared with that of 49 THAs performed with the older version. With the newer version, the mean absolute accuracy (95% limits of agreement) of implant alignment was 1.2° (± 3.3°) for cup inclination, 1.0° (± 2.4°) for cup anteversion, 2.0° (± 4.9°) for stem anteversion, and 1.1° (± 2.4°) for stem valgus angle. The accuracy of the implant position was 1.5 mm (± 3.1 mm), 1.3 mm (± 3.0 mm), and 1.5 mm (± 3.1 mm) for cup x-, y-, and z-axes, respectively, 1.6 mm (± 3.2 mm), 1.4 mm (± 2.9 mm), and 1.5 mm (± 2.7 mm) for stem x-, y-, and z-axes, respectively, and 2.4 mm (± 4.5 mm) for leg length discrepancy. The values for the newer version were significantly more accurate with less variation compared to those of the older version. With upgraded navigation performance, more accurate implant placement was demonstrated in the clinical setting.

How pelvic tilt influences intraoperative digital radiography in total hip arthroplasty


Digital Radiography in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Technique and Radiographic Results, by Penenberg et al. JBJS (2018) 100 (3): 226


Obtaining the ideal acetabular cup position in total hip arthroplasty remains a challenge. Advancements in digital radiography and image analysis software allow the assessment of the cup position during the surgical procedure. This study describes a validated technique for evaluating cup position during total hip arthroplasty using digital radiography.

Three hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made. Intraoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. Radiographic beam angle adjustments and operative table adjustments were made to approximate rotation and tilt of the preoperative radiograph. The target for cup position was 30° to 50° abduction and 15° to 35° anteversion. Intraoperative radiographic measurements were calculated and final cup position was determined after strict impingement and range-of-motion testing. Postoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made. Two independent observers remeasured all abduction and anteversion angles.

Of the cups, 97.8% were placed within 30° to 50° of abduction, with a mean angle (and standard deviation) of 39.5° ± 4.6°. The 2.2% of cups placed outside the target zone were placed so purposefully on the basis of intraoperative range-of-motion testing and patient factors, and 97.6% of cups were placed between 15° and 35° of anteversion, with a mean angle of 26.6° ± 4.7°. Twenty-eight percent of cups were repositioned on the basis of intraoperative measurements. Subluxation during range-of-motion testing occurred in 3% of hips despite acceptable measurements, necessitating cup repositioning. There was 1 early anterior dislocation.

Placing the acetabular component within a target range is a critical component to minimizing dislocation and polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Using digital radiography, we positioned the acetabular component in our desired target zone in 97.8% of cases and outside the target zone, purposefully, in 2.2% of cases. When used in conjunction with strict impingement testing, digital radiography allows for predictable cup placement in total hip arthroplasty.

The safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA


The Safe Zone Range for Cup Anteversion Is Narrower Than for Inclination in THA by William et al. CORR (2018) 476 (2): 325–335.


Background Cup malposition is a common cause of impingement, limitation of ROM, acceleration of bearing wear, liner fracture, and instability in THA. Previous studies of the safe zone based on plain radiographs have limitations inherent to measuring angles from two-dimensional projections. The current study uses CT to measure component position in stable and unstable hips to assess the presence of a safe zone for cup position in THA.

Questions/purposes (1) Does acetabular component orientation, when measured on CT, differ in stable components and those revised for recurrent instability? (2) Do CT data support historic safe zone definitions for component orientation in THA?

Methods We identified 34 hips that had undergone revision of the acetabulum for recurrent instability that also had a CT scan of the pelvis between August 2003 and February 2017. We also identified 175 patients with stable hip replacements who also had a CT study for preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation of the contralateral side. For each CT study, one observer analyzed major factors including acetabular orientation, femoral anteversion, combined anteversion (the sum of femoral and anatomic anteversion), pelvic tilt, total offset difference, head diameter, age, sex, and body mass index. These measures were then compared among stable hips, hips with cup revision for anterior instability, and hips with cup revision for posterior instability. We used a clinically relevant measurement of operative anteversion and inclination as opposed to the historic use of radiographic anteversion and inclination. The percentage of unstable hips in the historic Lewinnek safe zone was calculated, and a new safe zone was proposed based on an area with no unstable hips.

Results Anteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had higher operative anteversion of the cup (44° ± 12° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, 13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5°-21°; p = 0.003), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (40° ± 6° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, 14°; 95% CI, 10°-18°; p < 0.001), and combined tilt-adjusted anteversion of the cup (64° ± 10° versus 54° ± 19°, respectively; mean difference, 10°; 95% CI, 1°-19°; p = 0.028). Posteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had lower operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 15° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, -12°; 95% CI, -5° to -18°; p = 0.001), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 13° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, -8°; 95% CI, -14° to -2°; p = 0.014), pelvic tilt (0° ± 6° versus 4° ± 6°, respectively; mean difference, -4°; 95% CI, -7° to -1°; p = 0.007), and anatomic cup anteversion (25° ± 18° versus 34° ± 12°, respectively; mean difference, -9°; 95% CI, -1° to -17°; p = 0.033). Thirty-two percent of the unstable hips were located in the Lewinnek safe zone (11 of 34; 10 posterior dislocations, one anterior dislocation). In addition, a safe zone with no unstable hips was identified within 43° ± 12° of operative inclination and 31° ± 8° of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion. Conclusions The current study supports the notion of a safe zone for acetabular component orientation based on CT. However, the results demonstrate that the historic Lewinnek safe zone is not a reliable predictor of future stability. Analysis of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and operative inclination demonstrates a new safe zone where no hips were revised for recurrent instability that is narrower for tilt-adjusted operative anteversion than for operative inclination. Tilt-adjusted operative anteversion is significantly different between stable and unstable hips, and surgeons should therefore prioritize assessment of preoperative pelvic tilt and accurate placement in operative anteversion. With improvements in patient-specific cup orientation goals and acetabular component placement, further refinement of a safe zone with CT data may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications.

Level of Evidence
: Level III, diagnostic study.

Angiography and embolization in the management of bleeding pelvic fractures


Open access review article Angiography and Embolization in the Management of Bleeding Pelvic Fractures by Vaidya, Waldron, Scott, and Nasr, JAAOS (2018) 26 (4): e68–e76


The use, timing, and priority of angioembolization in the management of bleeding pelvic fractures remain ambiguous. The most common vessels for angioembolization are, in decreasing order, the internal iliac artery and its branches, the superior gluteal artery, the obturator artery, and the internal pudendal artery. Technical success rates for this treatment option range from 74% to 100%. The fracture patterns most commonly requiring angioembolization are the Young and Burgess lateral compression and anterior-posterior compression types and Tile type C. Mortality rates after angioembolization of 16% to 50% have been reported, but deaths are usually related to concomitant injuries. The sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced CT in detecting the need for angioembolization range from 60% to 90% and 92% to 100%, respectively. Angioembolization can be effective in the management of bleeding pelvic fractures, but as with any treatment, the risks of complications must be considered. Availability of angioembolization and institutional expertise/preference for the alternative strategy of pelvic packing influence its use.