How accurate is image-free computer navigation for hip resurfacing arthroplasty? An anatomical investigation

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Vol. 14; no. 5; p. 497
• Main Authors: Schnurr, C, Nessler, J, Meyer, C, Schild, H H, Koebke, J, König, D P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan 01-09-2009
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods; Female; Femur - anatomy & histology; Femur - surgery; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
• ISSN: 1436-2023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00776-009-1356-5

The existing studies concerning image-free navigated implantation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty are based on analysis of the accuracy of conventional biplane radiography. Studies have shown that these measurements in biplane radiography are imprecise and that precision is improved by use of three-dimensional (3D) computer tomography (CT) scans. To date, the accuracy of image-free navigation devices for hip resurfacing has not been investigated using CT scans, and anteversion accuracy has not been assessed at all. Furthermore, no study has tested the reliability of the navigation software concerning the automatically calculated implant position. The purpose of our study was to analyze the accuracy of varus-valgus and anteversion using an image-free hip resurfacing navigation device. The reliability of the software-calculated implant position was also determined.
A total of 32 femoral hip resurfacing components were implanted on embalmed human femors using an image-free navigation device. In all, 16 prostheses were implanted with the proposed position generated by the navigation software; the 16 prostheses were inserted in an optimized valgus position. A 3D CT scan was undertaken before and after operation.
The difference between the measured and planned varus-valgus angle averaged 1 degrees (mean +/- SD: group I, 1 degrees +/- 2 degrees ; group II, 1 degrees +/- 1 degrees ). The mean +/- SD difference between femoral neck anteversion and anteversion of the implant was 4 degrees (group I, 4 degrees +/- 4 degrees ; group II, 4 degrees +/- 3 degrees ). The software-calculated implant position differed 7 degrees +/- 8 degrees from the measured neck-shaft angle. These measured accuracies did not differ significantly between the two groups.
Our study proved the high accuracy of the navigation device concerning the most important biomechanical factor: the varus-valgus angle. The software calculation of the proposed implant position has been shown to be inaccurate and needs improvement. Hence, manual adjustment of the implant position in the software-planning step is frequently required.