Background

Migration analysis after total joint arthroplasty are performed using EBRA analysis (Krismer et al., 1997) or - more accurate but also much more cost-intensive and time-consuming – via radiostereometric analysis (RSA). For the latter, additional radiographs from two inclined perspectives are needed in regular intervals in order to define the position of the implant relative to tantalum bone markers which have been implanted during surgery of the artificial joint (Fig. 1). Modern analysis software promises a migration precision along the stem axis of a hip implant of less than 100 μm (Witvoet-Brahm et al., 2007). However, as the analysis is performed semi-automatically, the results are still dependent on the subjective evaluation of the X-rays by the observer. Thus, the present phantom study aims at evaluating the inter- and intra-observer reliability, the repeatability as well as the precision and gives insight into the potential and limits of the RSA method.

Purpose. Implant positioning is one of the critical factors influencing the postoperative outcome in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Conventional (manual) intraoperative stem adjustment may result in variability and inaccuracy of stem antetorsion (AT). Since March 2013, we have measured stem antetorsion with CT free Navigation system (OrthoPilot Navigation System THA Pro Ver4.2, B/Braun Aesculap Germany: Navi). We have developed a simple instrument, the Gravity-guide (G-guide), for intraoperative assessment and adjustment of stem AT. We evaluated the accuracy and effectiveness of G-guide and navigation software as referenced to postoperative CT evaluation with 3D template system (Zed hip, LEXI, Japan). Method. Between March 2013 and December 2014, 50 patients underwent primary THA were evaluated. Surgeries were performed with routine techniques with a modified Hardinge approach with the patient at a lateral decubitus position in all cases. The G-guide consists of two parts: one attached to the lower leg and the other attached to the handle of the rasp. During surgery, AT value was determined with navigation at the time of final rasping of the femur. Additionally, the G-guide was utilised at the time of final rasp insertion. In intraoperative AT assessment using this instrument, a correction was required considering the discrepancy between the perpendicular to the posterior condylar axis and the longitudinal axis of the lower leg. The angle of discrepancy between posterior condylar line and femoral trans-epicondyler axis needs to be taken into consideration. Therefore, correction by the angle between the trans-epicondylar and posterior condylar lines (correction angle) was required for each patient when the intraoperative AT as measured by the G-guide. Therefore, the correction angle should be added to the AT value obtained from the G-guide for comparison with postoperative value measured with Zed Hip. Result. The discrepancy between the intraoperative G-guide with correction angle and postoperative Zed Hip measurements was 4.7° ± 3.9°. The discrepancy between Navi AT and postoperative Zed HIP measurements was 5.9° ± 4.1°. A discrepancy was 10° or more were 7 cases in Navi and 4 cases in G-guide. Conclusion. Navi and G-guide measured intraoperative stem antetorsion was comparable utility

Osteoporosis is common and the health and financial cost of fragility fractures is considerable. The burden of cardiovascular disease has been reduced dramatically by identifying and targeting those most at risk. A similar approach is potentially possible in the context of fragility fractures. The World Health Organization created and endorsed the use of FRAX, a fracture risk assessment tool, which uses selected risk factors to calculate a quantitative, patient-specific, ten-year risk of sustaining a fragility fracture. Treatment can thus be based on this as well as on measured bone mineral density. It may also be used to determine at-risk individuals, who should undergo bone densitometry. FRAX has been incorporated into the national osteoporosis guidelines of countries in the Americas, Europe, the Far East and Australasia. The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advocates its use in their guidance on the assessment of the risk of fragility fracture, and it may become an important tool to combat the health challenges posed by fragility fractures.