Accuracy of the preoperative planning for cementless total hip arthroplasty. A randomised comparison between three-dimensional computerised planning and conventional templating.

INTRODUCTION A high accuracy was recently reported for the three-dimensional (3D) computerised planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA), comparing well with navigation regarding leg length and femoral offset. However, there is no randomised study comparing 3D preoperative planning with conventional 2D templating in terms of accuracy and clinical relevance. HYPOTHESIS The 3D preoperative planning has a higher accuracy than the conventional 2D preoperative templating regarding the implants size and their positioning. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective comparative randomised study was carried out from 2008 to 2009, including two groups of 30 patients who underwent THA for primary osteoarthritis. One surgeon performed all the surgical procedures using a minimally invasive direct anterior approach. In one group, the planning was made on calibrated X-rays using 2D templates. In the other group, a CT-scan based 3D computerised planning was performed with dedicated software. The reconstructed hip final anatomy was compared postoperatively to the preoperative planning and the accuracy was expressed as the mean difference (±SD) between the planned positioning and the final positioning of the implants. RESULTS The prediction rate for the stem and the cup sizes were respectively of 100% and 96% in the 3D group versus 43% for both components in the 2D group. When combining both components, the prediction rate was 96% in the 3D group versus 16% in the 2D group. In the 3D group, a high accuracy was achieved for the planning of the leg length (-1.8±3.6 mm ranging from -8 to+4mm) and the femoral offset (-0.07±2.7 mm ranging from -5 to+4mm) versus 1.37±6.4mm ranging from -9 to 13 mm and 0.33±5.7 mm (-16 to 11 mm) in the 2D templating group (P<0.0001). DISCUSSION The 3D planning gives a higher accuracy than conventional 2D templating in forecasting the size of cup and the stem. This contributes to the prediction for leg length and offset that is more reliable with the 3D technique. This study suggests that 3D planning CT-scan data is an attractive alternative to navigation to restore these parameters. The high accuracy achieved by a low-experience surgeon suggests that 3D planning may help shorten the learning curve when using the minimally invasive direct anterior approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III low-powered prospective randomized trial.

[1]  Philipp Drees,et al.  The internal calcar septum and its contact with the virtual stem in THRA computer tomographic evaluation , 2003, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[2]  E. Salvati,et al.  The precision and usefulness of preoperative planning for cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[3]  Xavier Flecher,et al.  Custom Cementless Stem Improves Hip Function in Young Patients at 15-year Followup , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Computed tomography for preoperative planning in minimal-invasive total hip arthroplasty: radiation exposure and cost analysis. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[5]  K S Conn,et al.  A simple guide to determine the magnification of radiographs and to improve the accuracy of preoperative templating. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  Nobuhiko Sugano,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation for femoral stem orientation and leg length discrepancy. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  Patrick Gamble,et al.  The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  Elhadi Sariali,et al.  Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis. Analysis of the femoral offset. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  H. Tullos,et al.  Effect of rotation on the radiographic appearance of the femoral canal. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  E. Sariali,et al.  Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty using Hueter anterior approach. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  A. Lombardi,et al.  Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. , 2009, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[12]  J. Puget,et al.  [Computer-assisted positioning of the acetabular cup for total hip arthroplasty based on joint kinematics without prior imaging: preliminary results with computed tomographic assessment]. , 2006, Revue de chirurgie orthopédique et réparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[13]  Elena De Momi,et al.  Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[14]  G. Bannister,et al.  The importance of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[15]  J. W. Knight,et al.  Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplastyQuantitating its utility and precision , 1992 .

[16]  A. Maeyama,et al.  Hip abductor strengths after total hip arthroplasty via the lateral and posterolateral approaches. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  O. Mahoney,et al.  Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  L. Specht,et al.  A comparison of acetate vs digital templating for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty: is digital templating accurate and safe? , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  G. Pasquier,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty offset measurement: is C T scan the most accurate option? , 2010, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[20]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  Hip abductor strength following total hip arthroplasty: A prospective comparison of the posterior and lateral approach in 100 patients , 2001, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[21]  S. Yoshiya,et al.  Adjustment of leg length using imageless navigation THA software without a femoral tracker , 2011, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[22]  M J Oddy,et al.  Assessment of reproducibility and accuracy in templating hybrid total hip arthroplasty using digital radiographs. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  P. Peene,et al.  Radiological aspects in preoperative planning and postoperative assessment of cementless total hip arthroplasty. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[24]  J. Knight,et al.  Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Quantitating its utility and precision. , 1992, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[25]  T. Young,et al.  Determination of accuracy of preoperative templating of noncemented femoral prostheses. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  R. Ahmad,et al.  Leg Length Discrepancy in Total Hip Arthroplasty with the use of Cemented and Uncemented Femoral Stems. A Prospective Radiological Study , 2009, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[27]  Eduardo A. Salvati,et al.  The utility and precision of analogue and digital preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty , 2008, International Orthopaedics.

[28]  B. Jewett,et al.  High Complication Rate With Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasties on a Fracture Table , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[29]  R. Bourne,et al.  Soft tissue balancing: the hip. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[30]  C. Mazel,et al.  [Value of preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty]. , 2002, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[31]  K. An,et al.  Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.