ABSTRACT
Purpose: Preoperative planning has become essential in performance of total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, data regarding the effect of the planner's experience on the accuracy of digital preoperative planning is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of digital templating in THA based on the surgeon's experience. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted. An analysis of 98 anteroposterior pelvic radiographs, which were individually templated by four surgeons (two hip surgeons and two orthopaedic residents) using TraumaCad® digital planning, was performed. A comparison of preoperatively planned sizes with implanted sizes was performed to evaluate the accuracy of predicting component size. The results of preoperative planning performed by hip surgeons and orthopaedic residents were compared for testing of the planner's experience. Results: Femoral stem was precisely predicted in 32.4% of cases, acetabular component in 40.3%, and femoral offset in 76.7%. Prediction of cup size showed greater accuracy than femoral size among all observers. No differences in any variable were observed among the four groups (acetabular cup P=0.07, femoral stem P=0.82, femoral offset P=0.06). All measurements showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] acetabular cup: 0.76, ICC femoral stem: 0.79). Conclusion: The results of this study might suggest that even though a surgeon's experience supports improved precision during the planning stage, it should not be restricted only to surgeons with a high level of experience. We consider preoperative planning an essential part of the surgery, which should be included in training for orthopaedics residents.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Compare the outcomes of randomized clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: Nine randomized clinical trials were selected. The clinical, radiological, and surgical outcomes were analyzed, including functional and pain scores, range of motion, adjacent segment degeneration, adverse events, and need for reoperation. RESULTS: 2664 patients were included in the study. Pooled results indicated that the CDA group had a significantly higher overall success rate (p < 0.001), a higher improvement in the neck disability index (NDI) (p = 0.002), less VAS arm pain (p = 0.01), and better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component (p = 0.01) than ACDF group. Likewise, the pooled results indicated a significantly higher motion rate (p < 0.001), less adjacent syndrome (p < 0.05), and a lower percentage of reoperation (p < 0.001) in the CDA group. There were no significant differences between the CDA and ACDF groups in the neck pain scale (p = 0.11), the health questionnaire SF-36 mental component (p = 0.10), and in adverse events (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up, CDA showed a better overall success rate, better improvement in NDI, less VAS arm pain, better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component, a higher motion rate, less adjacent syndrome, and less reoperation rate than ACDF. No significant differences were found in the neck pain scale, SF-36 mental component, and in adverse events.
