Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2024 | Hip-TEP | Research article
Variety of femoral anteversion and its measurement in cementless total hip arthroplasty: Does robotic technology improve accuracy?
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2024
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
High-performance total hip arthroplasty (THA) depends on the accurate position of components. However, femoral anteversion is variable, and current studies only used traditional instruments to evaluate it, such as protractor and spirit level with limited cases. This study aimed to identify the variability in the measured femoral native anteversion and intraoperative stem anteversion under different measurement methods, including intraoperative robotic method. We hypothesized that robotic technology was more accurate than traditional instruments for femoral anteversion evaluation.
Methods
This study included 117 hips of patients who underwent robotic-assisted THA between November 2019 and March 2021. Preoperative native femoral anteversion was measured using a robotic system. Intraoperative femoral stem anteversion was evaluated visually, and then measured with a goniometer and a robotic system, respectively. Variability in the measured femoral native anteversion and intraoperative femoral stem anteversion was calculated and compared. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation analysis were used to assess the consistency and correlation of anteversion of different measurements and postoperative CT-measured stem anteversion, respectively.
Results
The result of measurement for preoperative native femoral anteversion was more variable than the intraoperative robotic-measured stem anteversion. Intraoperative robotic-measured stem version showed the highest correlation with postoperative CT measurement of stem version (r = 0.806, P < 0.001), while intraoperative surgeon estimation had the lowest correlation coefficient (r = 0.281, P = 0.025). As for the consistency with postoperative CT measurement of femoral stem anteversion, the intraoperative robotic-measured femoral stem version also had the highest value (ICC = 0.892, P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Native femoral anteversion was variable preoperatively. Using cementless stems, anteversion was also highly variable. Robotic assessment for stem anteversion during surgery was more consistent with the final position than the preoperative assessment and conventional intraoperative estimation.