Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20111021-08Cited by:1

Abstract

Ultrasound-navigated cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) was performed in 10 consecutive patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip between August 2008 and October 2009 (M:F, 6:4; median age, 61 years; age range, 30–86 years). The pelvic orientation was defined by preoperative digitization and registration of bony landmarks. Cup inclination and anteversion were documented for each patient intraoperatively (epidigitized vs ultrasound-assessed landmarks). The median difference between the palpated and ultrasound anterior pelvic plane was 8° (range, 4°–18°) for pelvic tilt (rotation around the transversal axis), 1° (range, −3° to 2°) for rotation around the longitudinal axis, and 0.25° (range, −2.0° to 5.0°) for rotation around the sagittal axis. The median difference in cup orientation resulting from pelvic tilt error was 6° (range, 3°–13°) for anteversion and 3° (range, −1° to 5°) for inclination. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The measured width of soft tissue layer anterior to the pelvic symphysis correlated significantly with the measured difference in cup inclination and anteversion. One centimeter of soft tissue anterior to the symphysis resulted in a median 2° (range, 1.75°–2.3°) difference in pelvic tilt.

Ultrasound-assisted navigation in THA is a promising technology able to eliminate systematic errors in anterior pelvic plane orientation, in contrast to conventionally navigated THA using percutaneous palpation of landmarks or THA without navigational support.

  • 1.Leun KS. Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery: present status and future perspectives. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010; 123(21):2967–2968.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2.Molli RG, Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer-assisted navigation software advancements improve the accuracy of total knee arthroplasty [published online ahead of print March 23, 2010]. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(3):432–438.10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.002

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3.Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, et al.Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty [published online ahead of print January 14, 2011]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(7):1107–1112.10.1007/s00167-010-1361-4

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4.Kelley TC, Swank ML. Role of navigation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(Suppl 1):153–158.10.2106/JBJS.H.01463

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.Sendtner E, Schuster T, Wörner M, Kalteis T, Grifka J, Renkawitz T. Accuracy of acetabular cup placement in computer-assisted, minimally-invasive THR in a lateral decubitus position [published online ahead of print May 21, 2010]. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(6):809–815.10.1007/s00264-010-1042-4

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6.Jenny JY, Boeri C, Dosch JC, Uscatu M, Ciobanu E. Navigated non-image-based positioning of the acetabulum during total hip replacement [published online ahead of print November 13, 2007]. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(1):83–87.10.1007/s00264-007-0479-6

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7.Beckmann J, Stengel D, Tingart M, Götz J, Grifka J, Lüring C. Navigated cup implantation in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80(5):538–544.10.3109/17453670903350073

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(2):217–220.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; (261):159–170.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.Ryan JA, Jamali AA, Bargar WL. Accuracy of computer navigation for acetabular component placement in THA [published online ahead of print July 24, 2009]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(1):169–77.10.1007/s11999-009-1003-7

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.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 [published online ahead of print November 11, 2009]. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(1):19–24.10.1007/s00264-009-0903-1

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Spencer JM, Day RE, Sloan KE, Beaver RJ. Computer navigation of the acetabular component: a cadaver reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(7):972–975.10.1302/0301-620X.88B7.17468

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Grützner PA, Zheng G, Langlotz U, et al.C-arm based navigation in total hip arthroplasty—background and clinical experience. Injury. 2004; 35(Suppl 1):S-A90–95.10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.016

    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Kilian P, Plaskos C, Parratte S, et al.New visualization tools: computer vision and ultrasound for MIS navigation. Int J Med Robot. 2008; 4(1):23–31.10.1002/rcs.178

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Hasart O, Poepplau BM, Asbach P, Perka C, Wassilew GI. Ultrasound-based navigation and 3D CT compared in acetabular cup position. Orthopedics. 2009; 32(10 Suppl):6–10.10.3928/01477447-20090915-50.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16.Hasart O, Perka C, Tohtz S. Comparison between pointer-based and ultrasound-based navigation technique in THA using a minimally invasive approach. Orthopedics. 2008; 31(10 Suppl 1). pii: orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=35540.

    Google Scholar
  • 17.König DP, Michael JW, Eysel P, Münnich U, Lichtenstein T, Schnurr C. Computer-assisted joint replacement surgery. Financial and clinical impact for a specialised orthopaedic hospital [in German] [published online ahead of print August 28, 2009]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009; 147(6):669–674.10.1055/s-0029-1185916

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18.Schnurr C, Münnich U, Eysel P, König DP. Computer-assisted joint replacement surgery [in German]. Versicherungsmedizin. 2010; 62(1):16–19.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19.Amin DV, Kanade T, DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B. Ultrasound registration of the bone surface for surgical navigation. Comput Aided Surg. 2003; 8(1):1–16.10.3109/10929080309146097

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20.Lin F, Lim D, Wixson RL, Milos S, Hendrix RW, Makhsous M. Limitations of imageless computer-assisted navigation for total hip arthroplasty [published online ahead of print September 3, 2010]. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):596–605.10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.027

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Richolt JA, Rittmeister ME. Misinterpretation of the anteversion in computer-assisted acetabular cup navigation as a result of a simplified palpation method of the frontal pelvic plane [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2006; 144(3):305–310.10.1055/s-2006-933495

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22.Parratte S, Argenson JN. Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(3):494–499.10.2106/JBJS.F.00529

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Hasart O, Perka C, Christian K, Asbach P, Janz V, Wassilew GI. Influence of body mass index and thickness of soft tissue on accuracy of ultrasound and pointer based registration in navigation of cup in hip arthroplasty. Technol Health Care. 2010; 18(4–5):341–351.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24.Kiefer H, Othman A. Ultrasound vs pointer palpation based method in THA navigation: a comparative study. Orthopedics. 2007; 30(10 Suppl):S153–S156.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Anda S, Svenningsen S, Grontvedt T, Benum P. Pelvic inclination and spatial orientation of the acetabulum. A radiographic, computed tomographic and clinical investigation. Acta Radiol. 1990; 31(4):389–394.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×