Accuracy of Two-dimensional Digital Planning in Uncemented Primary Hip Arthroplasty: Monocentric Analysis of Eight Hundred Implants

Overview

Journal Int Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Apr 15

PMID 38622366

Authors

Biagio Zampogna

Francesco Rosario Parisi

Andrea Zampoli

Anna Prezioso

Ferruccio Vorini

Alice Laudisio

Matteo Papalia

Nicola Papapietro

Francesco Falez

Rocco Papalia

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: In the last decades, there has been a refinement in total hip arthroplasty, which allowed surgeons to achieve the highest performance and better patient outcomes. Preoperative planning in primary hip arthroplasty is an essential step that guides the surgeon in restoring the anatomy and biomechanics of the joint. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the 2D digital planning, considering cup sizing, stem sizing, and limb length discrepancy. Additionally, we conducted a multivariable analysis of demographic data and comorbidities to find factors influencing preoperative planning.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the planning accuracy in 800 consecutive uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty. We compared the preoperatively planned total hip arthroplasty with postoperative results regarding the planned component size, the implanted size, and the lower limb length restoration. Therefore, we investigated factors influencing planning accuracy: overweight and obesity, sex, age, past medical history, comorbidities, and implant design. All the surgeries were performed in the posterolateral approach by one expert surgeon who did the preoperative planning. The preoperative planning was determined to be (a) exact if the planned and the implanted components were the same size and (b) accurate if exact ± one size. The restoration of postoperative limb length discrepancy was classified into three groups: ± 3 mm, ± 5 mm, and ± 10 mm. This assessment was performed through a digital method 2D based on a standard hip X-ray.

Results: This court of 800 implants showed that planning was exact in 60% of the cups and 44% of the stems and was accurate in 94% of the cups and 80% of the stems. The postoperative limb length discrepancy was ± 3 mm in 91% and ± 5 mm in 97%.

Conclusions: This study showed preoperative 2D digital planning great precision and reliability, and we demonstrated that it was accurate in 94% of the cups and 80% of the stems. Therefore, the preoperative limb length discrepancy analysis was essential to guarantee the recovery of the operated limb's correct length.

Citing Articles

Planning Accuracy and Stem Offset Assessment in Digital Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Planning in Cementless Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Parisi F, Zampogna B, Zampoli A, Ferrini A, Albimonti G, Del Monaco A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(21).

PMID: 39518705 PMC: 11546058. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13216566.

References

Colombi A, Schena D, Castelli C . Total hip arthroplasty planning. EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4(11):626-632. PMC: 6851526. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180075. View

Sobieraj M, Rimnac C . Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene: mechanics, morphology, and clinical behavior. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2009; 2(5):433-43. PMC: 3601552. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.12.006. View

Tsikandylakis G, Overgaard S, Zagra L, Karrholm J . Global diversity in bearings in primary THA. EFORT Open Rev. 2020; 5(10):763-775. PMC: 7608521. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200002. View

Khalifa A, Bakr H . Updates in biomaterials of bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplasty. 2022; 3(1):32. PMC: 8796426. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-021-00092-6. View

Rae I, Stimson E, Scheraga H . Nuclear Overhauser effects and the conformation of gramicidin S. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1977; 77(1):225-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0006-291x(77)80186-1. View

Zampogna B, Papalia G, Parisi F, Luciano C, Gregori P, Vorini F . Early return to activity of daily living after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int. 2022; 33(6):968-976. DOI: 10.1177/11207000221146116. View

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M . Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780-5. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. View

Lecerf G, Fessy M, Philippot R, Massin P, Giraud F, Flecher X . Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009; 95(3):210-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.010. View

Di Martino A, Rossomando V, Brunello M, DAgostino C, Pederiva D, Frugiuele J . How to perform correct templating in total hip replacement. Musculoskelet Surg. 2023; 107(1):19-28. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-023-00772-3. View

10.

Lindgren J, Rysavy J . Restoration of femoral offset during hip replacement. A radiographic cadaver study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992; 63(4):407-10. DOI: 10.3109/17453679209154755. View

11.

Brenneis M, Braun S, van Drongelen S, Fey B, Tarhan T, Stief F . Accuracy of Preoperative Templating in Total Hip Arthroplasty With Special Focus on Stem Morphology: A Randomized Comparison Between Common Digital and Three-Dimensional Planning Using Biplanar Radiographs. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 36(3):1149-1155. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.016. View

12.

Miashiro E, Fujiki E, Yamaguchi E, Chikude T, Rodrigues L, Fontes G . Preoperative planning of primary total hip arthroplasty using conventional radiographs. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015; 49(2):140-8. PMC: 4511692. DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2014.03.019. View

13.

Holzer L, Scholler G, Wagner S, Friesenbichler J, Maurer-Ertl W, Leithner A . The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018; 139(2):263-268. PMC: 6373540. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-018-3080-0. View

14.

Sershon R, Diaz A, Bohl D, Levine B . Effect of Body Mass Index on Digital Templating for Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 32(3):1024-1026. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.020. View

15.

Luger M, Hochgatterer R, Klotz M, Hipmair G, Gotterbarm T, Schauer B . Digital templating for the implantation of a curved short hip stem with an anterolateral MIS approach shows gender differences in digital templating. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 142(7):1661-1668. PMC: 9217763. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04005-9. View

16.

Shemesh S, Robinson J, Keswani A, Bronson M, Moucha C, Chen D . The Accuracy of Digital Templating for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference Between Direct Anterior and Posterior Approaches?. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(6):1884-1889. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.032. View

17.

Shaarani S, McHugh G, Collins D . Accuracy of digital preoperative templating in 100 consecutive uncemented total hip arthroplasties: a single surgeon series. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 28(2):331-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.06.009. View

18.

Davila J, Kransdorf M, Duffy G . Surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty: accuracy of computer-assisted EndoMap software in predicting component size. Skeletal Radiol. 2006; 35(6):390-3. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-006-0106-4. View

19.

Wedemeyer C, Quitmann H, Xu J, Heep H, von Knoch M, Saxler G . Digital templating in total hip arthroplasty with the Mayo stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007; 128(10):1023-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0494-5. View

20.

Gamble P, de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Winemaker M . The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 25(4):529-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.011. View