Cemented or uncemented fixation: Which allows a more acceptable prosthetic femoral version in total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional computed-tomography (3D-CT) planning for primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) typically uses the external femoral surface; as a result, it is difficult to predict the prosthetic femoral version (PFV) for uncemented femoral stems that press-fit to the internal surface of the bone. Cemented fixation allows the surgeon to adjust the version independent of the internal femoral anatomy. We aimed to better understand the effect of the fixation type on PFV. METHODS: This was a case series study including a total of 95 consecutive patients (106 hips), who underwent uncemented (n = 81 hips) and cemented (n = 25 hips) primary THA using the posterior approach. The surgeon aimed for a PFV of 20°. Our primary objective was to compare PFV in both groups; our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) PFV was 13° (± 9°) and 23° (± 8°) for the uncemented and cemented THA groups (P < 0.001), respectively. In the uncemented THA group, 36% of the patients had a PFV of < 10°. In the cemented THA group, this clinically important threshold dropped to 8%. Similarly, the Bland-Altman (BA) plots showed wider 95% limits of agreement for the uncemented group. Satisfactory clinical outcomes were recorded. CONCLUSION: We found that the PFV was more clinically acceptable, for the posterior surgical approach, in the cemented group when compared to the uncemented group. Both THA groups reported high variability indicating the need to develop surgical tools to guide the PFV closer to the surgical target.

Can version of the proximal femur be used for CT planning uncemented femoral stems?

Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography (3D-CT) planning can predict the prosthetic femoral size in uncemented primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Correct sizing usually results in optimal varus/valgus femoral alignment; however, its effect on the Prosthetic Femoral Version (PFV) is poorly understood. Most 3D-CT planning systems use Native Femoral Version (NFV) to plan PFV. We aimed to assess the relationship between PFV and NFV in primary uncemented THA using 3D-CT analysis. Pre- and post-operative CT data was retrospectively collected from 73 patients (81 hips) undergoing primary uncemented THA with a straight-tapered stem. 3D-CT models were used to measure PFV and NFV. The clinical outcomes were evaluated. The discrepancy between PFV and NFV was low (<5°) in 43%, moderate (5-10°) in 40%, high (10-15°) in 11% and very high (>15°) in 6% of the cases. We found that NFV is not a useable guide for planning PFV. The 95% limits of agreement were both high at 17° and 15°, respectively. Satisfactory clinical outcomes were recorded. The discrepancy was large enough to recommend against the use of NFV for planning PFV when using straight-tapered uncemented stems. Further work should focus on the internal bony anatomy and the influence of stem design when planning uncemented femoral stems.

Guiding prosthetic femoral version using 3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation (PSI): a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of the femoral component with suboptimal version is associated with instability of the reconstructed hip joint. High variability of Prosthetic Femoral Version (PFV) has been reported in primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Three-dimensional (3D) Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been recently developed and may assist in delivering a PFV within the intended range. We performed a pilot study to better understand whether the intra-operative use of a novel PSI guide, designed to deliver a PFV of 20°, results in the target range of PFV in primary cemented THA. METHODS: We analysed post-operative Computed-Tomography (CT) data of two groups of patients who underwent primary cemented THA through posterior approach; 1. A group of 11 patients (11 hips) for which the surgeon used an intra-operative 3D-printed stem positioning guide (experimental) 2. A group of 24 patients (25 hips) for which the surgeon did not use the guide (control). The surgeon aimed for a PFV of 20°, and therefore the guide was designed to indicate the angle at which the stem was positioned intra-operatively. PFV angles were measured using the post-operative 3D-CT models of the proximal femurs and prosthetic components in both groups. Our primary objective was to compare the PFV in both groups. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) values for the PFV was 21.3° (± 4.6°) and 24.6° (± 8.2°) for the experimental and control groups respectively. In the control group, 20% of the patients reported a PFV outside the intended range of 10° to 30° anteversion. In the experimental group, this percentage dropped to 0%. Satisfactory clinical outcome was recorded in both groups. CONCLUSION: The intra-operative use of a PSI PFV guide helped the surgeon avoid suboptimal PFV in primary cemented THA. Further studies are needed to evaluate if the PSI guide directly contributes to a better clinical outcome.

Accuracy of a Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Patient-Specific (PS) Femoral Osteotomy Guide: A Computed Tomography (CT) Study.

Femoral neck osteotomy creates a critical anatomical landmark for surgeons performing primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA); it affects the final height and position of the femoral component. Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been developed to guide the osteotomy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a patient-specific (PS) femoral osteotomy guide in primary THA using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) analysis. We included pre- and post-operative CT data of 103 THAs. All patients underwent 3D planning to define the optimal femoral neck osteotomy level. Our primary objective was to quantify the discrepancy between the achieved and planned osteotomy level; our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcome. The median (Interquartile Range­IQR) discrepancy between the achieved and planned osteotomy level was 0.3 mm (−1 mm to 2 mm). We found a strong positive correlation between the planned and achieved osteotomy level (R2 = 0.9, p < 0.001). A satisfactory clinical outcome was recorded. Our findings suggest that surgeons can use 3D-printed PS guides to achieve a femoral neck osteotomy with a high level of accuracy to the plan.

Reconstruction of acetabular defects greater than Paprosky type 3B: the importance of functional imaging.

BACKGROUND: 3D Surgical planning has become a key tool in complex hip revision surgery. The restoration of centre of rotation (CoR) of the hips and leg length (LL) are key factors in achieving good clinical outcome. Pelvic imaging is the gold standard for planning and assessment of LL. We aimed to better understand if 3D planning is effective at equalising LL when large acetabular defects are present. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective case study of 25 patients. We report the analysis of pre-operative LL status and planned LL restoration measured on CT, in relation to the achieved LL measured post-operatively in functional, weight bearing position. Our primary objective was the assessment of restoration of CoR as well as the anatomical and functional LL using biplanar full-length standing low-dose radiographs; our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Pre-operative intra-pelvic discrepancy between right and left leg was a mean of 28 mm (SD 17.99, min = 3, max = 60 mm). Post-operatively, the difference between right and left vertical femoral offset (VFO), or CoR discrepancy, was of 7.4 mm on average, significantly different from the functional LL discrepancy (median = 15 mm), p = 0.0024. Anatomical LLD was a median of 15 mm. In one case there was transient foot drop, one dislocation occurred 6 months post-operatively and was treated by closed reduction, none of the patients had had revision surgery at the time of writing. Mean oxford hip score at latest follow up was 32.1/48. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to investigate limb length discrepancy in functional position after reconstruction of large acetabular defects. We observed that VFO is not an optimal surrogate for LL when there is significant bone loss leading to length inequality, fixed flexion of the knee and abduction deformity. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenging, LLD and gait abnormalities can be greatly improved with the aid of an accurate surgical planning. Surgeons and engineers should consider the integration of EOS imaging in surgical planning of reconstruction of large acetabular defects.

Three-dimensional pre-operative planning of primary hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review.

Three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative planning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is being recognized as a useful tool in planning elective surgery, and as crucial to define the optimal component size, position and orientation. The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing literature for the use of 3D pre-operative planning in primary THA.A systematic literature search was performed using keywords, through PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar, to retrieve all publications documenting the use of 3D planning in primary THA. We focussed on (1) the accuracy of implant sizing, restoration of hip biomechanics and component orientation; (2) the benefits and barriers of this tool; and (3) current gaps in literature and clinical practice.Clinical studies have highlighted the accuracy of 3D pre-operative planning in predicting the optimal component size and orientation in primary THAs. Component size planning accuracy ranged between 34-100% and 41-100% for the stem and cup respectively. The absolute, average difference between planned and achieved values of leg length, offset, centre of rotation, stem version, cup version, inclination and abduction were 1 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, 4°, 7°, 0.5° and 4° respectively.Benefits include 3D representation of the human anatomy for precise sizing and surgical execution. Barriers include increased radiation dose, learning curve and cost. Long-term evidence investigating this technology is limited.Emphasis should be placed on understanding the health economics of an optimized implant inventory as well as long-term clinical outcomes. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:845-855. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200046.