A custom-made guide-wire positioning device for Hip Surface Replacement Arthroplasty: description and first results

BackgroundHip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) can be an alternative for total hip arthroplasty. The short and long-term outcome of hip surface replacement arthroplasty mainly relies on the optimal size and position of the femoral component. This can be defined before surgery with pre-operative templating. Reproducing the optimal, templated femoral implant position during surgery relies on guide wire positioning devices in combination with visual inspection and experience of the surgeon. Another method of transferring the templated position into surgery is by navigation or Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS). Though CAS is documented to increase accurate placement particularly in case of normal hip anatomy, it requires bulky equipment that is not readily available in each centre.MethodsA custom made neck jig device is presented as well as the results of a pilot study.The device is produced based on data pre-operatively acquired with CT-scan. The position of the guide wire is chosen as the anatomical axis of the femoral neck. Adjustments to the design of the jig are made based on the orthopedic surgeon's recommendations for the drill direction. The SRA jig is designed as a slightly more-than-hemispherical cage to fit the anterior part of the femoral head. The cage is connected to an anterior neck support. Four knifes are attached on the central arch of the cage. A drill guide cylinder is attached to the cage, thus allowing guide wire positioning as pre-operatively planned.Custom made devices were tested in 5 patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty. The orthopedic surgeons reported the practical aspects of the use of the neck-jig device. The retrieved femoral heads were analyzed to assess the achieved drill place in mm deviation from the predefined location and orientation compared to the predefined orientation.ResultsThe orthopedic surgeons rated the passive stability, full contact with neck portion of the jig and knife contact with femoral head, positive. There were no guide failures. The jig unique position and the number of steps required to put the guide in place were rated 1, while the complexity to put the guide into place was rated 1-2. In all five cases the guide wire was accurately positioned. Maximum angular deviation was 2.9° and maximum distance between insertion points was 2.1 mm.ConclusionsPilot testing of a custom made jig for use during SRA indicated that the device was (1) successfully applied and user friendly and (2) allowed for accurate guide wire placement according to the preoperative plan.

[1]  A. Hodgson,et al.  Hip Resurfacing Femoral Neck Fracture Influenced by Valgus Placement , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  P. Campbell,et al.  Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: a 7-10 year follow-up study. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[3]  T. Vail,et al.  Position of hip resurfacing component affects strain and resistance to fracture in the femoral neck. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  R Zdero,et al.  Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: the effect of alignment of the femoral component. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  Wolfgang Fitz,et al.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  N. Helmy,et al.  Comparative repeatability of guide-pin axis positioning in computer-assisted and manual femoral head resurfacing arthroplasty , 2007, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[7]  M. Silva,et al.  Optimizing Patient Selection and Outcomes with Total Hip Resurfacing , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  Michael Dunbar,et al.  Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  M. Lavigne,et al.  [Hip resurfacing: current state of knowledge]. , 2008, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[10]  E. Zaragoza,et al.  The femoral head/neck offset and hip resurfacing. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  Christoph Eingartner,et al.  Current trends in total hip arthroplasty. , 2007, Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja.

[12]  M. Naughton,et al.  Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  D. Zukor,et al.  Risk of periprosthetic femoral neck fracture after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: valgus compared with anatomic alignment. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  P. Beaulé,et al.  Learning from the learning curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis , 2009, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[15]  J Vander Sloten,et al.  Accuracy assessment of CT-based outer surface femur meshes , 2008, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[16]  M. Lavigne,et al.  Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[17]  E. Su,et al.  Comparison of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component: a cadaveric study. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  Justin P Cobb,et al.  Learning how to resurface cam-type femoral heads with acceptable accuracy and precision: the role of computed tomography-based navigation. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  H. Amstutz,et al.  Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  Joseph X. Robin,et al.  Spontaneous recurrent dislocation after primary Birmingham hip resurfacing: a rare complication in a 44-year-old man. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  R. Barrack,et al.  Is Patient Selection Important for Hip Resurfacing? , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  D. Morgan,et al.  Computer-assisted vs conventional mechanical jig technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  Iain A Anderson,et al.  Accuracy of Computer-assisted Navigation for Femoral Head Resurfacing Decreases in Hips with Abnormal Anatomy , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[24]  J. Kuiper,et al.  Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[25]  H. Amstutz,et al.  Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  M. Jacobs,et al.  Hip resurfacing through an anterolateral approach. Surgical description and early review. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  R. Ganz,et al.  Anatomic considerations for the choice of surgical approach for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2005, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[28]  G. Marchal,et al.  Image segmentation: methods and applications in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. , 1993, European journal of radiology.

[29]  T. Seyler,et al.  Does computer-assisted surgery improve accuracy and decrease the learning curve in hip resurfacing? A radiographic analysis. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.