Does Fluoroscopic-Aided Enabling Technology Improve Acetabular Component Position and Reduce Radiation Exposure in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty?

IF 0.8 Q4 SURGERY
Surgical technology international Pub Date : 2025-01-16
David A Crawford, Todd E Bertrand, Jacob Alexander, Adolph V Lombardi, Keith R Berend
{"title":"Does Fluoroscopic-Aided Enabling Technology Improve Acetabular Component Position and Reduce Radiation Exposure in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty?","authors":"David A Crawford, Todd E Bertrand, Jacob Alexander, Adolph V Lombardi, Keith R Berend","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate acetabular component positioning is crucial for the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Malplacement of the acetabular component increases the risk of post-surgery complications, most notably dislocation.1 Furthermore, malposition can also result in wear of the polyethylene liner, limited range of motion, and osteolysis.2,3 These complications have led to controversy regarding the optimal acetabular component position. The historic Lewinnek \"safe zone\" defines the ideal acetabular placement as within 40° +/- 10° abduction and 15° +/- 10° anteversion.4 However, recent controversy has emerged regarding the ideal placement of the acetabular component with one systematic review showing acetabular components placed within the Lewinnek parameters having no significant difference in dislocation rate to those components placed outside the \"safe zone.\"5 Callanan et al. found that a range of 30-45° of abduction and 5-25° of anteversion was the ideal target zone while other studies have argued that the historic safe zone, while useful, should not be considered completely protective against dislocations.6,7 In addition, the spinopelvic relationship as it relates to changes in acetabular cup orientation from a standing to seated position may alter cup placement from the \"ideal\" position to accommodate reduced spinopelvic junction motion and limit the risk of postoperative instability.8 Secondary to risk of acetabular cup malposition during THA, fluoroscopically aided enabling technology (FET) has gained popularity recently, secondary to proposed benefits of improved accuracy of intraoperative component positioning over standard landmark identification or the use of fluoroscopy alone (FA), as well as minimizing the risk of significant postoperative leg length discrepancies.9,10 In addition, further factors such as not needing special preoperative imaging, minimal change to workflow or surgical approach, and the possibility of reduced operative times have made the use of this technology appealing.11 In addition to the debate regarding ideal acetabular component position to reduce postoperative complications, there has been ongoing discussion regarding the potential detrimental effects of cumulative radiation dose to the surgeon, patient, and operating room personnel when using fluoroscopy for placement of the acetabular component in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA-THA). Prior studies have shown that during DAA- THA, average radiation time was 15.1 seconds (secs), and exposure was 2.00mGy with increasing exposure seen as patient body mass index (BMI) increased.12,13 In theory, FET may help to reduce radiation exposure through less use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for confirmation of acetabular component position. The questions proposed in this study are: 1) Does FET improve the accuracy of acetabular component position versus FA in DAA-THA? and 2) Does FET reduce fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure compared to FA in DAA-THA, and is this dependent upon the BMI of the patient?</p>","PeriodicalId":22194,"journal":{"name":"Surgical technology international","volume":"45 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical technology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate acetabular component positioning is crucial for the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Malplacement of the acetabular component increases the risk of post-surgery complications, most notably dislocation.1 Furthermore, malposition can also result in wear of the polyethylene liner, limited range of motion, and osteolysis.2,3 These complications have led to controversy regarding the optimal acetabular component position. The historic Lewinnek "safe zone" defines the ideal acetabular placement as within 40° +/- 10° abduction and 15° +/- 10° anteversion.4 However, recent controversy has emerged regarding the ideal placement of the acetabular component with one systematic review showing acetabular components placed within the Lewinnek parameters having no significant difference in dislocation rate to those components placed outside the "safe zone."5 Callanan et al. found that a range of 30-45° of abduction and 5-25° of anteversion was the ideal target zone while other studies have argued that the historic safe zone, while useful, should not be considered completely protective against dislocations.6,7 In addition, the spinopelvic relationship as it relates to changes in acetabular cup orientation from a standing to seated position may alter cup placement from the "ideal" position to accommodate reduced spinopelvic junction motion and limit the risk of postoperative instability.8 Secondary to risk of acetabular cup malposition during THA, fluoroscopically aided enabling technology (FET) has gained popularity recently, secondary to proposed benefits of improved accuracy of intraoperative component positioning over standard landmark identification or the use of fluoroscopy alone (FA), as well as minimizing the risk of significant postoperative leg length discrepancies.9,10 In addition, further factors such as not needing special preoperative imaging, minimal change to workflow or surgical approach, and the possibility of reduced operative times have made the use of this technology appealing.11 In addition to the debate regarding ideal acetabular component position to reduce postoperative complications, there has been ongoing discussion regarding the potential detrimental effects of cumulative radiation dose to the surgeon, patient, and operating room personnel when using fluoroscopy for placement of the acetabular component in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA-THA). Prior studies have shown that during DAA- THA, average radiation time was 15.1 seconds (secs), and exposure was 2.00mGy with increasing exposure seen as patient body mass index (BMI) increased.12,13 In theory, FET may help to reduce radiation exposure through less use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for confirmation of acetabular component position. The questions proposed in this study are: 1) Does FET improve the accuracy of acetabular component position versus FA in DAA-THA? and 2) Does FET reduce fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure compared to FA in DAA-THA, and is this dependent upon the BMI of the patient?

透视辅助使能技术能改善髋臼假体位置并减少直接前路全髋关节置换术中的辐射暴露吗?
准确的髋臼假体定位是全髋关节置换术成功的关键。髋臼假体的错位增加了术后并发症的风险,最明显的是脱位此外,错位也会导致聚乙烯衬垫磨损、活动范围受限和骨溶解。2,3这些并发症导致了关于最佳髋臼构件位置的争议。传统的Lewinnek“安全区域”定义了理想的髋臼位置为40°+/- 10°外旋和15°+/- 10°内旋然而,最近出现了关于髋臼假体理想放置位置的争议,一项系统综述显示,放置在Lewinnek参数内的髋臼假体与放置在“安全区域”外的假体在脱位率上没有显著差异。5 Callanan等人发现,30-45°外展和5-25°前倾是理想的目标范围,而其他研究认为,历史安全区虽然有用,但不应被视为完全保护脱位。6,7此外,髋臼杯从站立到坐位的变化可能会改变杯的位置,使其从“理想”位置改变,以适应脊柱-骨盆关节运动的减少,限制术后不稳定的风险除了THA期间髋臼杯错位的风险外,透视辅助使能技术(FET)最近越来越受欢迎,其次是术中假体定位的准确性比标准地标识别或单独使用透视(FA)更高,以及最大限度地降低术后显著腿长差异的风险。9,10此外,不需要特殊的术前成像,对工作流程或手术方法的改变最小,以及减少手术时间的可能性等其他因素使这项技术的使用具有吸引力除了关于髋臼假体的理想位置以减少术后并发症的争论外,在直接前路全髋关节置换术(DAA-THA)中使用x线透视放置髋臼假体时,累积辐射剂量对外科医生、患者和手术室人员的潜在有害影响也一直在进行讨论。先前的研究表明,在DAA- THA期间,平均辐射时间为15.1秒(secs),照射量为2.00mGy,随着患者体重指数(BMI)的增加,照射量也随之增加。12,13理论上,FET可以通过减少术中透视确认髋臼部件位置的使用来帮助减少辐射暴露。本研究提出的问题是:1)与FA相比,FET是否提高了DAA-THA中髋臼假体位置的准确性?2)与FA相比,FET在DAA-THA中是否减少了透视时间和辐射暴露,这是否取决于患者的BMI ?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
141
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信