Abstract
Introduction
Re-revision due to instability and dislocation can occur in up to 1 in 4 cases following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Optimal placement of components during revision surgery is thus critical in avoiding re-revision. Computer-assisted navigation has been shown to improve the accuracy and precision of component placement in primary THA; however, its role in revision surgery is less well documented. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of computer-assisted navigation on component placement in revision total hip arthroplasty, as compared with conventional surgery.
Methods
To examine the effect of navigation on acetabular component placement in revision THA, we retrospectively reviewed data from a multi-centre cohort of 128 patients having undergone revision THA between March 2017 and January 2019. An imageless computer navigation device (Intellijoint HIP®, Intellijoint Surgical, Kitchener, ON, Canada) was utilized in 69 surgeries and conventional methods were used in 59 surgeries. Acetabular component placement (anteversion, inclination) and the proportion of acetabular components placed in a functional safe zone (40° inclination/20° anteversion) were compared between navigation assisted and conventional THA groups.
Results
Mean inclination decreased post-operatively versus baseline in both the navigation (44.9°±12.1° vs. 43.0°±6.8°, p=0.65) and control (45.8°±19.4° vs. 42.8°±7.1°, p=0.08) groups. Mean anteversion increased in both study groups, with a significant increase noted in the navigation group (18.6°±8.5° vs. 21.6°±7.8°, p=0.04) but not in the control group (19.4°±9.6° vs. 21.2°±9.8°, p=0.33). Post-operatively, a greater proportion of acetabular components were within ±10° of a functional target (40° inclination, 20° anteversion) in the navigation group (inclination: 59/67 (88%), anteversion: 56/67 (84%)) than in the control group (49/59 (83%) and 41/59, (69%), respectively). Acetabular component precision in both study groups improved post-operatively versus baseline. Variance in inclination improved significantly in both control (50.6° vs. 112.4°, p=0.002) and navigation (46.2° vs. 141.1°, p<0.001) groups. Anteversion variance worsened in the control group (96.3° vs. 87.6°, p=0.36) but the navigation group showed improvement (61.2° vs. 72.7°, p=0.25). Post-operative variance amongst cup orientations in the navigation group (IN: 46.2°; AV: 61.2°) indicated significantly better precision than that observed in the control group (IN: 50.6°, p=0.36; AV: 96.3°, p=0.04).
Discussion
Re-revision is required in up to 25% of revision THA cases, of which 36% are caused by instability. This places a significant burden on the health care system and highlights the importance of accurate component placement. Our data indicate that the use of imageless navigation in revision THA – by minimizing the likelihood of outliers – may contribute to lower rates of re-revision by improving component orientation in revision THA.
Conclusion
Utilizing imageless navigation in revision THAs results in more consistent placement of the acetabular component as compared to non-navigated revision surgeries.
