The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ adverse effects
Biomechanical Phenomena
Clinical Competence
Data Accuracy
Female
Femur
/ diagnostic imaging
Hip Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Overweight
Patient Care Planning
/ standards
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Preoperative Care
/ methods
Radiography
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Software
Digital templating
Experience
Obesity
Total hip arthroplasty
X-rays
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
30
06
2018
pubmed:
14
12
2018
medline:
4
4
2019
entrez:
8
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preoperative planning is an essential part of total hip arthroplasty (THA). It facilitates the surgical procedure, helps to provide the correct implant size and aims at restoring biomechanical conditions. In recent times, surgeons rely more and more on digital templating techniques. Although the conversion to picture archiving and communication system had many positive effects, there are still problems that have to be taken into consideration. The core objective was to evaluate the impact of the planners' experience on the accuracy of predicting component size in digital preoperative templating of THA. In addition, the influence of overweight and obesity (according to WHO-criteria), patient's sex and component design on the accuracy of preoperative planning have been analysed. The retrospective study included 632 consecutive patients who had primary uncemented THA. Digital templating was done using "syngo-EndoMap" software by Siemens Medical Solutions AG. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test have been used for statistical analysis. The accuracy of predicting component size has been evaluated by comparing preoperative planned sizes with implanted sizes as documented by the surgeons. The planner's experience was tested by comparing the reliability of preoperative planning done by senior surgeons or residents. The influence of BMI on predicting component size has been tested by comparing the accuracy of digital templating between different groups of BMI according to WHO-criteria. The same procedure has been done for evaluating the impact of patient´s sex and component design. The implant size was predicted exactly in 42% for the femoral and in 37% for the acetabular component. 87% of the femoral components and 78% of the acetabular cups were accurate within one size. Digital templating of femoral implant size was significantly more reliable when done by a senior surgeon. No difference was found for the acetabular component sizes. The BMI also had an impact on estimating the correct femoral implant size. In overweight patients, planning was significantly more inaccurate than normal weight people. Differences were seen in obese patients. However, these were not significant. Accuracy of acetabular components was not affected. The design of the prostheses and the patient's sex had no influence on predicting component size. Inexperience and overweight are factors that correlate with inaccuracy of preoperative digital templating in femoral components, whereas acetabular components seem to be independent of these factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30523444
doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3080-0
pii: 10.1007/s00402-018-3080-0
pmc: PMC6373540
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263-268Références
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2002 May;88(3):229-35
pubmed: 12037478
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005 Jan;87(1):53-4
pubmed: 15720909
Acta Orthop. 2005 Feb;76(1):78-84
pubmed: 15788312
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005 Nov;13(7):455-62
pubmed: 16272270
Skeletal Radiol. 2006 Jun;35(6):390-3
pubmed: 16572344
Int Orthop. 2008 Jun;32(3):289-94
pubmed: 17404731
Can J Surg. 2009 Feb;52(1):6-11
pubmed: 19234645
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Apr;91(4):459-62
pubmed: 19336804
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jan;92(1):136-41
pubmed: 20044692
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jul;93(7):876-80
pubmed: 21705556
Acta Orthop Belg. 2011 Oct;77(5):616-21
pubmed: 22187836
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2012 Jan 2;4(1):e12
pubmed: 22577500
Skeletal Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(10):1245-9
pubmed: 22588597
Z Orthop Unfall. 2012 Sep;150(4):404-8
pubmed: 22753126
J Surg Educ. 2013 Jan-Feb;70(1):76-80
pubmed: 23337674
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Feb;29(2):401-4
pubmed: 23891058
Indian J Orthop. 2013 Sep;47(5):443-8
pubmed: 24133302
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Aug;29(8):1658-60
pubmed: 24736293
Skeletal Radiol. 1987;16(6):442-6
pubmed: 3659989
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Jan;75(1):6-13
pubmed: 8421036
J Arthroplasty. 1995 Aug;10(4):507-13
pubmed: 8523011
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Mar;78(2):178-84
pubmed: 8666620
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 May;80(3):382-90
pubmed: 9619923