Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2025; 11: a26543327
DOI: 10.1055/a-2654-3327
Original Article

Ninety-Day Complications Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with Computer Navigation versus Conventional Techniques

Authors

  • Blaire Peterson 

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

  • Travis Kotzur

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

  • Aaron Singh

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

  • John Parker 

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

  • Frank Buttacavoli

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

  • Chance Moore

    1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background

Computer navigation is associated with improved limb alignment and implant position in total joint arthroplasty. While it is commonly used in total knee arthroplasty, adoption in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been slower. Further, the literature is equivocal on whether computer navigation improves outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of computer navigation on outcomes in the setting of THA.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. The National Readmissions Database, from 2016 to 2020, was queried via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for all patients undergoing THA. To compare outcomes between conventional and computer-navigated THA, propensity score matching was used. In the matched cohort, logistic regression was applied to evaluate postoperative complications, while negative binomial regression was used to analyze readmissions, reoperations, and discharge disposition. Gamma regression with a log-link function was utilized to assess hospital charges and length of stay.

Results

We identified a total of 1,191,362 patients undergoing primary THA. After successful matching, there were 12,918 patients in each cohort. Computer navigation was associated with increased blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 2.72; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause medical complications (p = 0.123). Computer-navigated procedures were associated with significantly reduced 90-day readmission (OR 0.85; p = 0.028); however, total charges were greater (OR 1.31; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

We found that computer-navigated THA was significantly more expensive but had reduced short-term readmission following surgery. While there were increased odds of blood transfusion, computer navigation may still be safe and beneficial in appropriately selected patients.

Keywords

computer navigation - total hip arthroplasty - short-term outcomes


Publication History

Received: 23 January 2025

Accepted: 11 July 2025

Article published online:
01 August 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

Bibliographical Record
Blaire Peterson, Travis Kotzur, Aaron Singh, John Parker, Frank Buttacavoli, Chance Moore. Ninety-Day Complications Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with Computer Navigation versus Conventional Techniques. Surg J (N Y) 2025; 11: a26543327.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2654-3327
 

  • References

  • 1 Turkiewicz A, Petersson IF, Björk J. et al. Current and future impact of osteoarthritis on health care: A population-based study with projections to year 2032. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22 (11) 1826-1832
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D. et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: Estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73 (07) 1323-1330
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Birchfield PC. Osteoarthritis overview. Geriatr Nurs 2001; 22 (03) 124-130 , quiz 130–131
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019; 393 (10182): 1745-1759
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, Porter ML, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S. Hip replacement. Lancet 2018; 392 (10158): 1662-1671
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Sato EH, Stevenson KL, Blackburn BE. et al. Recovery curves for patient reported outcomes and physical function after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (7S): S65-S71
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Najarian BC, Kilgore JE, Markel DC. Evaluation of component positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device compared with traditional methods. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (01) 15-21
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Migliorini F, Cuozzo F, Oliva F, Eschweiler J, Hildebrand F, Maffulli N. CT-based navigation for total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res 2023; 28 (01) 443
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M. et al. The Otto Aufranc Award. Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively acetabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (355) 8-22
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Renkawitz T, Tingart M, Grifka J, Sendtner E, Kalteis T. Computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty: coding the next generation of navigation systems for orthopedic surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices 2009; 6 (05) 507-514
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bohl DD, Nolte MT, Ong K, Lau E, Calkins TE, Della Valle CJ. Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (03) 250-256
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Xu K, Li YM, Zhang HF, Wang CG, Xu YQ, Li ZJ. Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (05) 528-533
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Montgomery BK, Bala A, Huddleston III JI, Goodman SB, Maloney WJ, Amanatullah DF. Computer navigation vs conventional total hip arthroplasty: A Medicare database analysis. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (09) 1994-1998.e1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Beckmann J, Stengel D, Tingart M, Götz J, Grifka J, Lüring C. Navigated cup implantation in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (05) 538-544
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (01) 19-24
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 LaValva SM, Chiu Y-F, Fowler MJ, Lyman S, Carli AV. Robotics and navigation do not affect the risk of periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched cohort analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2024; 106 (07) 582-589
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Constantinescu DS, Costello II JP, Yakkanti RR. et al. Varying complication rates and increased costs in technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty versus conventional instrumentation in 1,372,300 primary total hips. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (07) 1771-1776
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Hsiue PP, Chen CJ, Villalpando C, Ponzio D, Khoshbin A, Stavrakis AI. Trends and patient factors associated with technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2014. Arthroplast Today 2020; 6 (01) 112-117.e1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 NRD Overview. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). November 2022. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed July 15, 2025 at: www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nrdoverview.jsp
  • 20 van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care 2009; 47 (06) 626-633
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Kotzur TM, Singh A, Peng LN, Makhani AA, Seifi A, Moore CC. Comparing common risk assessment tools to predict outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (9S2): S163 , 170.e11
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Moskal JT, Capps SG. Acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty: an evidence-based analysis. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (08) 1432-1437
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (02) 217-220
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Tauriainen TJT, Niinimäki TT, Niinimäki JL, Nousiainen TOP, Leppilahti JI. Poor acetabular component orientation increases revision risk in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2204-2207
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sadhu A, Nam D, Coobs BR, Barrack TN, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Acetabular component position and the risk of dislocation following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (03) 987-991
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hernández A, Lakhani K, Núñez JH, Mimendia I, Pons A, Barro V. Can we trust combined anteversion and Lewinnek safe zone to avoid hip prosthesis dislocation?. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021; 21: 101562
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Piple AS, Wang JC, Hill W. et al. Postoperative outcomes and trends in computer-navigated and robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2024; 34 (05) 569-577
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Montironi F, Pullen C. Leg length discrepancy, dislocation rate, and offset in total hip replacement using a short modular stem: navigation vs conventional freehand. Orthopedics 2008 31. (10 Suppl 1): orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=35541
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A, Flecher X, Argenson J-NA. No benefit after THA performed with computer-assisted cup placement: 10-year results of a randomized controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (10) 2085-2093
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hamilton WG, Sershon RA, Gupta A. et al. Readmission rate and healthcare utilization outcomes of computer-assisted fluoroscopy-based hip navigation versus manual total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 2023; 20 (09) 779-789
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Korber S, Antonios JK, Sivasundaram L. et al. Utilization of technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2018. Arthroplast Today 2021; 12: 36-44
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Brown ML, Reed JD, Drinkwater CJ. Imageless computer-assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: one surgeon's initial experience. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (05) 1015-1020
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 de Palma L, Procaccini R, Soccetti A, Marinelli M. Hospital cost of treating early dislocation following hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2012; 22 (01) 62-67
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Li Y-L, Jia J, Wu Q, Ning G-Z, Wu Q-L, Feng S-Q. Evidence-based computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: an updated analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24 (04) 531-538
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Aoude AA, Aldebeyan SA, Nooh A, Weber MH, Tanzer M. Thirty-day complications of conventional and computer-assisted total knee and total hip arthroplasty: Analysis of 103,855 patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1674-1679
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Simcox T, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Davidovitch RI. Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes?. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (08) 2801-2807
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Urquhart DM, Hanna FS, Brennan SL. et al. Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (08) 1216-22.e1 , 3
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Orland MD, Lee RY, Naami EE, Patetta MJ, Hussain AK, Gonzalez MH. Surgical duration implicated in major postoperative complications in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020; 4 (11) e20.00043
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Ross D, Erkocak O, Rasouli MR, Parvizi J. Operative time directly correlates with blood loss and need for blood transfusion in total joint arthroplasty. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2019; 7 (03) 229-234
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Nathens AB, Jurkovich GJ, Maier RV. et al. Relationship between trauma center volume and outcomes. JAMA 2001; 285 (09) 1164-1171
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Hecht Ii CJ, Porto JR, Sanghvi PA, Homma Y, Sculco PK, Kamath AF. Navigating the learning curve: assessing caseload and comparing outcomes before and after the learning curve of computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty. J Robot Surg 2024; 18 (01) 104
    Search in Google Scholar