» Articles » PMID: 25801810

No Difference in Clinical Outcome, Bone Density and Polyethylene Wear 5-7 Years After Standard Navigated Vs. Conventional Cementfree Total Hip Arthroplasty

Overview
Date 2015 Mar 25
PMID 25801810
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this investigation was to compare clinical outcome, component loosening, polyethylene cup wear and periprosthetic bone mineral density between "cup first" navigated and conventional cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) 5-7 years after surgery.

Materials And Methods: Fifty patients who received THA with (n = 25) or without (n = 25) the use of an image-free navigation system by a single surgeon were investigated after a mean follow-up of 6.4 (4.8-7.4) years. The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Harris Hip Score (HHS) were obtained; range-of-motion (ROM) was evaluated by a blinded examiner. Radiographic cup inclination, signs of radiographic loosening and polyethylene wear were analysed with the help of digital analysis software on anterio-posterior radiographs by a blinded examiner. Acetabular and femoral periprosthetic bone density was evaluated with the help of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Results: We were unable to find any statistical significant or clinically relevant difference for the HOOS, HHS, ROM and polyethylene wear between the navigated and the conventional THA group 5-7 years after surgery. Cup inclination was more precise in the navigated THA group in relation to the target value of 45°.

Conclusions: Standard "cup first" THA navigation does not improve mid-term functional outcome, bony ingrowth and/or polyethylene wear. New concepts in computer-assisted THA, considering cup and stem as coupled biomechanical partners are needed to justify the effort of navigation in routine operations.

Citing Articles

Computer-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves Acetabular Prosthesis Placement Accuracy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.

Zhou G, Geng X, Zhang M, Sun Z, Li F, Zhao M Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(12):3078-3087.

PMID: 39344283 PMC: 11608766. DOI: 10.1111/os.14251.


Spinopelvic alignment and low back pain after total hip arthroplasty: a scoping review.

Pourahmadi M, Sahebalam M, Dommerholt J, Delavari S, Mohseni-Bandpei M, Keshtkar A BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):250.

PMID: 35291992 PMC: 8925238. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05154-7.


Trends and patient factors associated with technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2014.

Hsiue P, Chen C, Villalpando C, Ponzio D, Khoshbin A, Stavrakis A Arthroplast Today. 2020; 6(1):112-117.e1.

PMID: 32211486 PMC: 7083725. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.12.009.


Technology in Arthroplasty: Are We Improving Value?.

Waddell B, Carroll K, Jerabek S Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017; 10(3):378-387.

PMID: 28687958 PMC: 5577416. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-017-9415-6.


Advances in hip arthroplasty surgery: what is justified?.

Zagra L EFORT Open Rev. 2017; 2(5):171-178.

PMID: 28630755 PMC: 5467678. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.170008.