Patient-specific cutting guides entered into clinical practice few years ago, first introduced in total knee replacement and recently also for other joint replacements. Advantages claimed are improving accuracy and repeatability in implant placement. New patient-specific guides to perform an accurate femoral neck resection and provide a precise alignment reference for acetabular reaming in total hip arthroplasty (THA) were recently developed by Medacta International: MyHip Technology. To date femoral guides can be designed for both anterior and posterior approaches, whereas acetabular guides are available only for posterior approach. Evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of MyHip guides placement on cadavers is performed using a navigation system. Accuracy of femoral MyHip guides is evaluated also through one author's clinical experience (RP). During each cadaveric session one body (2 hips) was available. A pre-operative CT scan has been obtained and used in order to create the 3D bone model of the pelvis and proximal femurs. Afterwards, a surgical planning for THA has been performed for each case, and, once it was approved by the surgeons, the designed patient-specific blocks were made. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in positioning the guides was assessed getting measures of femoral head resection height (mm), femoral head plane inclination/anteversion (°) and acetabular reaming axis orientation (°). 9 surgeons, through 2 cadaveric sessions, positioned each guide, removed it and re-positioned it 5 times alternatively. The system is judged as accurate if all measures differ less than 3mm and 5°for lengths and angles respectively from the average among all the acquisitions. Clinical experience includes 68 THA which were performed between March 2014 and April 2015. Anterior femoral MyHip guides were used for the femoral head resection, while the acetabular side was prepared using the standard metal instrumentation for minimally invasive anterior approach. Intra-operative complications, as well post-operative leg length difference and implant positioning are assessed.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Conventional pre-operative planning for total hip arthroplasty mostly relies on the patient radiologic anatomy for the positioning and choice of implants. This kind of planning essentially remains a static approach since dynamic aspects such as the joint kinematics are not taken into account. Hence, clinicians are not able to fully consider the evolving behavior of the prosthetic joint that may lead to implant failures. In fact, kinematics plays an important role since some movement may create conflicts within the prosthetic joint and even provoke dislocations. The goal of our study was to assess the relationship between acetabular implant positioning variations and resultant impingements and loss of joint congruence during daily activities. In order to obtain accurate hip joint kinematics for simulation, we performed an in-vivo study using optical motion capture and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Motion capture and MRI was carried out on 4 healthy volunteers (mean age, 28 years). Motion from the subjects was acquired during routine (stand-to-sit, lie down) and specific activities (lace the shoes while seated, pick an object on the floor while seated or standing) known to be prone to implant dislocation and impingement. The hip joint kinematics was computed from the recorded markers trajectories using a validated optimized fitting algorithm (accuracy: translational error ≍ 0.5 mm, rotational error < 3°) which accounted for skin motion artifactsand patient-specific anatomical constraints (e.g. bone geometry reconstructed from MRI, hip joint center) (Fig. 1). 3D models of prosthetic hip joints (pelvis, proximal femur, cup, stem, head) were developed based on variations of acetabular cup's inclination (40°, 45°, 60°) and anteversion (0°, 15°, 30°) parameters, resulting in a total of 9 different implant configurations. Femoral anteversion remained fixed and determined as “neutral” with the stem being parallel to the posterior cortex of the femoral neck. Motion capture data of daily tasks were applied to all implant configurations. While visualizing the prosthetic models in motion, a collision detection algorithm was used to locate abnormal contacts between both bony and prosthetic components (Fig. 2). Moreover, femoral head translations (subluxation) were computed to evaluate the joint congruence.Introduction
Methods
