Aims

This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on hip and distal femur fracture patient outcomes across three successive UK lockdown periods over one year.

Mal-positioning of the acetabular component is associated with increased dislocation rate, increased wear and component impingement. Navigation provides real time feedback to the surgeon and allows the accurate position of implants. Compared to conventional techniques of total hip replacement; use of the imageless navigation system has shown to improve accuracy of implant positioning.

When impacting uncemented acetabular components under navigation, there is often a deviation from the planned abduction and anteversion measurement due to deflection of the implant in the reamed cavity. Although there exists the ability to navigate the reaming of the acetabular cavity; this is not widely performed. The ability to ream the acetabular cavity in the exact orientation of the planned acetabular component may provide some theoretical advantage on the final acetabular position. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of navigated Vs free hand acetabulum reaming on achieving the planned orientation of acetabular component.

In a retrospective study we reviewed two groups of patients who underwent computer navigated placement of the acetabular component with reference to the anterior pelvic plane. We used an imageless computer navigation system for all cases (Brainlab, Munich). All procedures were performed by single surgeon (ETD) through a standard posterior approach. The patients were divided into two groups depending on the availability of the navigated reamer. In the first group (n = 57), acetabulum reaming was done under navigation and in the second group (n = 37) a non-navigated reamer was used. The acetabular cavity was reamed “line to line” or under reamed by 1 or 2mm. Intra-operative acetabular abduction and anteversion angles were planned using navigation at the discretion of the surgeon. Results of planned acetabular abduction and anteversion angles were compared with intra-operative verification using the navigation system.

In the navigated reamer group, the mean error from the planned to verified abduction angle was 1.7 degrees (SD 2.1 degrees) and in the non-navigated reamer group the mean error was 2 degrees (SD 2.6 degrees). In the navigated reamer group, the mean error from the planned to verified anteversion angle was 0.5 degrees (SD 2.8), and in the non-navigated reamer group the mean error was 0.1 degrees (SD 1.6). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean error between the navigated and non-navigated reaming groups for abduction angle (p = 0.54) or anteversion angle (p = 0.24). There was no statistical difference between the mean acetabular component size in the navigated (mean 53mm) and non-navigated (53mm) reamer groups (p = 0.8). There was no statistical difference in the mean difference in reamer size and the acetabular component size in the navigated (0.8mm) and non-navigated reamer groups (0.8mm, p = 0.52).

This study appears to show that performing reaming of the acetabular cavity under navigation does not improve the final orientation of the acetabular component when compared to using conventional non-navigated reamers. However, this study only considered the abduction and anteversion orientation of the component. The move to a range of movement or kinematic orientation of the acetabular component in hip arthroplasty requires control over the off-set of the acetabular component which may be more easily achieved when the reaming is performed under navigation. This study used a conventional posterior approach rather than a minimal incision technique, where the use of navigated reaming may also provide some theoretical advantage when visibility is limited. Further study is required in these two areas.

There appears to be a slightly higher standard deviation for the anteversion measurement in the navigated reamer group when compared to the non navigated reamer group, although this is not significant. It is difficult to account for this as it appears to be opposite of what one would predict. One explanation for this may come in the difference in the angled geometry of the navigated reamer when compared to the straight non navigated reamer. The angled reamer can be more difficult to control forming a cavity in the correct orientation but with the possibility for the cavity to not been perfectly hemispherical.

When using navigation to insert the acetabular component in a planned abduction and anteversion position during hip arthroplasty through a standard incision, navigating the reaming of the acetabular component does not appear to provide any advantage over the use of conventional non-navigated reamers in the final acetabular orientation.