Evaluation of cup placement accuracy in computer assisted total hip arthroplasty

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1007/s00402-025-05797-w
Hiroki Kaneta, Takeshi Shoji, Shinichi Ueki, Hiroyuki Morita, Yosuke Kozuma, Nobuo Adachi
{"title":"Evaluation of cup placement accuracy in computer assisted total hip arthroplasty","authors":"Hiroki Kaneta,&nbsp;Takeshi Shoji,&nbsp;Shinichi Ueki,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Morita,&nbsp;Yosuke Kozuma,&nbsp;Nobuo Adachi","doi":"10.1007/s00402-025-05797-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Total hip arthroplasty (THA) accuracy has improved significantly with various advances in computer-assisted equipment (CAE), including robotic systems, computed tomography (CT) navigation, and portable navigation. However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of acetabular cup placement and its impact on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across these three CAE systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate cup placement accuracy and PROMs in THA using different CAE systems.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective analysis included 196 patients (202 hip joints) who underwent THA with three CAE systems from May 2021 to August 2023. Patients were categorized into the robotic system (73 hips), CT navigation (83 hips), and portable navigation (46 hips). Postoperative CT scans measured cup placement angles—radiographic inclination (RI) and radiographic anteversion (RA) —and compared them with preoperative target angles. Anterior-posterior (AP) cup position differences were evaluated by measuring the distance between the acetabular and cup center in the axial view of the postoperative CT scans. PROMs were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ) at 3 and 12 months.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Demographic characteristics, including age, sex, primary disease, and Body Mass Index, were similar across groups. The robotic system exhibited significantly smaller deviations in ΔRI and ΔRA compared to CT navigation and portable navigation. AP cup position differences were also smaller in the robotic system versus portable navigation; however, the difference between the robotic and CT navigation systems was not statistically significant. Despite the superior precision of cup placement in the robotic system, no significant differences in JHEQ scores were observed among the groups at 3 and 12 months.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Robotic systems demonstrated superior accuracy in cup placement. However, short-term PROMs did not significantly differ, suggesting that PROMs may not solely depend on accurate cup placement. Future research should investigate additional factors influencing PROMs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00402-025-05797-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-025-05797-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) accuracy has improved significantly with various advances in computer-assisted equipment (CAE), including robotic systems, computed tomography (CT) navigation, and portable navigation. However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of acetabular cup placement and its impact on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across these three CAE systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate cup placement accuracy and PROMs in THA using different CAE systems.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 196 patients (202 hip joints) who underwent THA with three CAE systems from May 2021 to August 2023. Patients were categorized into the robotic system (73 hips), CT navigation (83 hips), and portable navigation (46 hips). Postoperative CT scans measured cup placement angles—radiographic inclination (RI) and radiographic anteversion (RA) —and compared them with preoperative target angles. Anterior-posterior (AP) cup position differences were evaluated by measuring the distance between the acetabular and cup center in the axial view of the postoperative CT scans. PROMs were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ) at 3 and 12 months.

Results

Demographic characteristics, including age, sex, primary disease, and Body Mass Index, were similar across groups. The robotic system exhibited significantly smaller deviations in ΔRI and ΔRA compared to CT navigation and portable navigation. AP cup position differences were also smaller in the robotic system versus portable navigation; however, the difference between the robotic and CT navigation systems was not statistically significant. Despite the superior precision of cup placement in the robotic system, no significant differences in JHEQ scores were observed among the groups at 3 and 12 months.

Conclusion

Robotic systems demonstrated superior accuracy in cup placement. However, short-term PROMs did not significantly differ, suggesting that PROMs may not solely depend on accurate cup placement. Future research should investigate additional factors influencing PROMs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机辅助全髋关节置换术中假杯放置精度的评价
随着计算机辅助设备(CAE)的各种进步,包括机器人系统、计算机断层扫描(CT)导航和便携式导航,全髋关节置换术(THA)的准确性显著提高。然而,没有研究直接比较这三种CAE系统中髋臼杯放置的准确性及其对患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的影响。在本研究中,我们旨在评估不同CAE系统在THA中的杯子放置精度和prom。方法回顾性分析2021年5月至2023年8月期间采用三种CAE系统行THA的196例患者(202个髋关节)。患者分为机器人系统(73髋)、CT导航(83髋)和便携式导航(46髋)。术后CT扫描测量了杯子放置角度、x线倾斜(RI)和x线前倾(RA),并将其与术前靶角进行比较。通过测量髋臼和髋臼杯中心在术后CT轴位视图上的距离来评估前后(AP)杯的位置差异。在3个月和12个月时使用日本骨科协会髋关节疾病评估问卷(JHEQ)对PROMs进行评估。结果人口统计学特征,包括年龄、性别、原发疾病和体重指数,各组间相似。与CT导航和便携式导航相比,机器人系统在ΔRI和ΔRA上的偏差明显较小。与便携式导航相比,机器人系统的AP杯位置差异也较小;然而,机器人和CT导航系统之间的差异没有统计学意义。尽管机器人系统的杯子放置精度更高,但在3个月和12个月时,两组之间的JHEQ评分没有显著差异。结论机器人系统在杯子放置方面具有较高的准确性。然而,短期PROMs并没有显著差异,这表明PROMs可能不仅仅取决于杯子的准确放置。未来的研究应探讨影响prom的其他因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
期刊最新文献
Persistent extensor strength deficit despite acceptable clinical outcomes after surgical treatment of patella fractures: a mid- to long-term follow-up study. Coordinated Return-to-Work model reduces sickness absences after hip or knee arthroplasty: a registry-based study. Does the preoperative CPAK classification influence clinical outcomes after medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Short-term outcomes and phenotype distribution in a retrospective series of consecutive cases. Tendon gel using the film model method promotes ligament healing in rabbits. Comparison of 20-year results of total hip arthroplasty using first-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene and zirconia heads in patients aged ≤ 50 and > 50 years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1