Reproducibility of Digital Planning in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Experienced and Novice Surgeons

Abstract

Objective The present study aims to assess the reproducibility of digital planning for cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) among surgeons with different levels of experience. In addition, it attempts to determine the degree of planning reliability based on a contralateral THA or on a spherical marker positioned at the greater trochanter for calibration.

Methods Two evaluators with different experience levels (A1 and A2) performed independently the retrospective digital surgical planning of 64 cementless THAs. Next, we compared the planning with the implants used in the surgery. The reproducibility was excellent when planning and implants were identical; proper in case of a single-unit variation; and inappropriate if there was variation in two or more units. The present analysis also determined the calibration accuracy between the contralateral THA and the spherical marker at the greater trochanter level.

Results The present study demonstrated greater success when the most experienced evaluator performed the planning and greater accuracy for the contralateral THA. When splitting the analysis per parameter (contralateral THA or spherical marker), there was a statistical difference only for the planning of A1 and the implants used in the surgery. This difference occurred in the excellent category, with 67.3% for contralateral THA compared with 30.6% for a spherical marker (p<0.001), and in the inappropriate category, with 7.1% for contralateral THA compared with 30.6% for a spherical marker (p<0.001).

Conclusions Digital planning is more accurate when performed by an experienced evaluator. The contralateral prosthesis head was a better reference than a marker on the greater trochanter.

Keywords

arthroplasty, replacement, hip - hip prosthesis - digital planning - patient care planning - radiography

Study developed at the Hip and Arthroplasties Group, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 21. Juli 2021

Angenommen: 24. September 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. September 2022

• Referências

• 1 Schwartsmann CR, Boschin LC. Quadril do adulto. In: Herbert S, Barros Filho TEP, Xavier R, Pardini Junior A, eds. Ortopedia e traumatologia: princípios e prática 4ª. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2009: 407-442
• 2 Muller ME. Total hip replacement: planning, technique and complications. In: Cruess RL, Mitchell NS, eds. Surgical management of degenerative arthritis of the lower limb. Philadelphia: Lea & Faber; 1975: 90-113
• 3 Müller ME. Lessons of 30 years of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (274) 12-21
• 4 Knight JL, Atwater RD. Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Quantitating its utility and precision. J Arthroplasty 1992; 7 (Suppl): 403-409
• 5 Polesello GC, Salerno TT, Rezende JHZ, de Queiroz MC, Rabelo ND, Ricioli Junior W. Is it Important to Know Where to Place the Spherical Marker for Hip Replacement Digital Planning?. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2020; 55 (03) 353-359
• 6 TraumaCad® Joints. BRAINLAB, 25/04/2021. Acesso em: 20 de maio de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.traumacad.com/pdf/MK2U00579_C_TraumaCad_Joints_Brochure_EN_DIGITAL.pdf
• 7 Polesello GC, Nakao TS, Queiroz MC. et al. Proposta de padronização do estudo radiográfico do quadril e da pelve. Rev Bras Ortop 2011; 46 (06) 634-642