This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Ganapathi, M. Articles by Günther, K.P. PubMed Articles by Ganapathi, M. Articles by Günther, K.P.

FEMORAL COMPONENT ORIENTATION IN HIP RESURFACING DONE WITH AND WITHOUT CT-FREE COMPUTER NAVIGATION.

Department of Surgery, Montreal University, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, 5415 Boul L’Assomption, Montréal, Québec, H1T 2M4, Canada

The aim of our study was to compare the precision and effectiveness of a CT-free computer navigation system against conventional technique (using a standard mechanical jig) in a cohort of unselected consecutive series of hip resurfacings.

One hundred and thirty nine consecutive Durom hip resurfacing procedures (51 navigated and 88 non-navigated) performed in 125 patients were analysed. All the procedures were done through a posterior approach by two surgeons and the study cohort include the hip resurfacings done during the transition phase of the surgeons’ adoption of navigation.

There were no significant differences in the gender, age, height, weight, BMI, native neck-shaft angles, component sizes and blood loss between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the operative time between the two groups (111 minutes for the navigated group versus 105 minutes for the non-navigated group; p=0.048). There were 4 cases of notching in the non-navigated group and none in the navigated group. There were no other intra-operative technical problems in either of the groups nor were there any femoral neck fractures.

No significant difference was found between the mean post-operative stem-shaft angles (138.5° for the navigated group versus 139.0° for the non navigated group, p=0.740). However there was a significant difference in the difference between the planned stem-shaft angle versus the post-operative stem-shaft angle (0.4° for the navigated group versus 2.1° for the non-navigated group; p=0.005). There was significantly more scatter in the difference between the post-operative stem-shaft angle and the planned stem-shaft angle in the non-navigated group (standard deviation = 3.6°) when compared with the navigated group (standard deviation = 0.9°; Levene’s test for equality of variances = p0.01). No case in the navigated group showed a post-operative stem-shaft angle of more than 5° deviation from the planned neck-shaft angle when compared to 33 cases (38%) in the non-navigated group (p0.001). While only 4 cases (8%) in the navigated group had a postoperative stem-shaft angle deviating more than 3° from the planned stem-shaft angle, this occurred in 50 cases (57%) in the non-navigated group (p0.001).

Hip resurfacing is a technically demanding procedure with a steep learning curve. Varus placement of the femoral component and notching have been recognised as important factors associated with early failures following hip resurfacing. While conventional instruments allowed reasonable alignment of the femoral component, our study has shown that use of computer navigation allows more accurate placement of the femoral component even when the surgeons had a significant experience with conventional technique.

Correspondence should be addressed to Mr K Deep, General Secretary CAOS UK, Dept of Orthopaedics, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow G81 4HX, Scotland. Email: caosuk{at}gmail.com