Cargando…

Effectiveness and Accuracy of a Patient‐Specific Instrumentation System for Total Hip Arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE: Traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often performed by visual inspection due to the lack of reliable reference, which results in inappropriate position of prosthesis and poor outcomes. This study attempts to introduce a novel patient‐specific instrumentation (PSI) system and asses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Teng, Jia, Zhao, Han, Wei, Wang, Junqiang, Li, Jinqi, Gong, Maoqi, Jiang, Xieyuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36636925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.13665
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often performed by visual inspection due to the lack of reliable reference, which results in inappropriate position of prosthesis and poor outcomes. This study attempts to introduce a novel patient‐specific instrumentation (PSI) system and assess its effectiveness and accuracy compared with freehand operation and robot system through bone model experiments. METHODS: Equally divide 30 sawbone models into the freehand group, PSI group, and robot group. Ten sets of prosthesis parameters were randomly generated as planning, and the three groups underwent simulated THA depending on these parameters. After the placement of the femoral prosthesis, the acetabular anteversion plan was adjusted in the PSI and robot groups so that the combined anteversion was maintained before and after adjustment. After the surgery, the actual prosthesis parameters of all bone models were measured and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in femoral anteversion error among the three groups (p = 0.951). The errors of acetabular cup anteversion, acetabular cup abduction, and combined anteversion in PSI group were 3.92° (2.94°, 4.62°), 5.65° (4.63°, 6.70°), and 3.93° (2.94°, 4.62°), respectively, which were significantly smaller than those in the freehand group [11.84° (9.92°, 13.87°), 13.54° (9.81°, 15.21°), 16.04° (8.18°, 19.25°), respectively, p < 0.05], but significantly larger than those in the robot group [1.34° (0.98°, 1.70°), 1.80° (1°, 2.02°), 1.34° (0.98°, 1.70°), respectively, p < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: Compared with the traditional freehand operation, the patient‐specific instrumentation system is feasible in total hip arthroplasty because it improves the accuracy of prosthesis placement. In addition, the rapid measurement of intraoperative femoral prosthesis parameters can help surgeons optimize preoperative planning.