A multicentre prospective assessment of the utility of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty with virtual range of motion on intraoperative implant positioning

Abstract

Background:

The growing adoption of robotic-assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA) has provided novel means through which a patient’s anatomy and dynamic spinopelvic relationship can be incorporated into surgical planning. However, the impact of enhanced technologies on intraoperative decision-making and changes to component positioning has not yet been described.

Methods:

A multicentre, prospective study included 105 patients (52% women) patients who underwent robotic-assisted THA with the integration of software that incorporates a patient’s pelvic tilt (PT) and virtual range-of-motion (VROM) for impingement modeling. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of patients who underwent changes to the preoperative plan for cup position after incorporating the data from the software.

Results:

Utilising the intraoperative VROM information, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed from the default (40° inclination and 20° anteversion) in 82/105 (78%) cases. When stratifying by spinopelvic mobility, 64% were considered normal (change ⩾ 10° and ⩽30°), 27% were stiff (change < 10°), and 9% were hypermobile (change > 30°). For all cohorts, the majority of cases (78%) deviated from the 40° inclination and 20° version target. When evaluating the proportion of cases within the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones based on spinopelvic mobility, 19% of cases within the normal group were planned outside of both zones compared to 39% of stiff cases and 10% of hypermobile cases.

Conclusions:

Utilising the latest version of robotic-assisted THA software, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed in the vast majority (78%) of patients, causing substantial deviations from traditional, generic cup targets.

Keywords

Impingement instability robotic total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brooks

. Dislocation following total hip replacement: causes and cures. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B(Suppl. A): 67–69.

Parvizi

Picinic

Sharkey

. Revision total hip arthroplasty for instability: surgical techniques and principles. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1134–1142.

Sanchez-Sotelo

Berry

. Epidemiology of instability after total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 2001; 32: 543–552,vii.

Soong

Rubash

Macaulay

. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 314–321.

Hermansen

Viberg

Overgaard

. Patient-reported outcome after dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasties: a cross-sectional study derived from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 29–36.

Sanchez-Sotelo

Haidukewych

Boberg

. Hospital cost of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 290–294.

Pirruccio

Premkumar

Sheth

. The burden of prosthetic hip dislocations in the United States is projected to significantly increase by 2035. Hip Int 2021; 31: 714–721.

Esposito

Gladnick

Lee

, et al. Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 109–113.

Patel

Potts

Froimson

. The dislocating hip arthroplasty: prevention and treatment. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22(Suppl. 1): 86–90.

10.

Callanan

Jarrett

Bragdon

, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 319–329.

11.

Lewinnek

Lewis

Tarr

, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60: 217–220.

12.

Abdel

von Roth

Jennings

, et al. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 386–391.

13.

Reize

Geiger

Suckel

, et al. Influence of surgical experience on accuracy of acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2008; 37: 360–363.

14.

Esposito

Gladnick

Lee

, et al. Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 109–113.

15.

Esposito

Carroll

Sculco

, et al. Total hip arthroplasty patients with fixed spinopelvic alignment are at higher risk of hip dislocation. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1449–1454.

16.

Vigdorchik

Madurawe

Dennis

, et al. High prevalence of spinopelvic risk factors in patients with post-operative hip dislocations. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38: 706–712.

17.

Heckmann

McKnight

Stefl

, et al. Late dislocation following total hip arthroplasty: spinopelvic imbalance as a causative factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 1845–1853.

18.

Windsor

Sharma

Premkumar

, et al. The use of technology to achieve the functional acetabular safe zone in total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 2022; 10: e21.00070.

19.

Tezuka

Heckmann

Bodner

, et al. Functional safe zone is superior to the Lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the Lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 3–8.

20.

Shaw

Rahman

Wesemann

, et al. Comparison of postoperative instability and acetabular cup positioning in robotic-assisted versus traditional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37(8S): S881–S889.

21.

Sicat

Buchalter

Luthringer

, et al. Intraoperative technology use improves accuracy of functional safe zone targeting in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37(7S): S540–S545.

22.

Snijders

van Gaalen

de Gast

. Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 2017; 13: e1843.

23.

Agarwal

Eckhard

Walter

, et al. The use of computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty is associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation: a study of 6,912 navigated THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103: 1900–1905.

24.

Bendich

Vigdorchik

Sharma

, et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37: 1124–1129.

25.

Hevesi

Wyles

Rouzrokh

, et al. Redefining the 3D topography of the acetabular safe zone: a multivariable study evaluating prosthetic hip stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104: 239–245.

26.

Ramkumar

Pang

Vigdorchik

, et al. Patient-specific safe zones for acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty: mathematically accounting for spinopelvic biomechanics. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38: 1779–1786.

27.

Vigdorchik

Eftekhary

Elbuluk

, et al. Evaluation of the spine is critical in the workup of recurrent instability after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B: 817–823.

28.

Vigdorchik

Sharma

Buckland

, et al. 2021 Otto Aufranc Award: a simple Hip-Spine Classification for total hip arthroplasty: validation and a large multicentre series. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B(7 Suppl. B): 17–24.