Validation of mediCAD® software for fully digital preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study

Introduction

The planning step that precedes a total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedure is crucial. Digital planning software programs are being increasingly used, although few studies have reported on the reliability of such tools. Furthermore, no studies have been conducted on the mediCAD® software, despite it being widely used in France. This led us to conduct a retrospective study to: (1) assess the accuracy of this planning software, (2) determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability, (3) determine how obesity affects the accuracy of planning.

Hypothesis

THA planning is accurate and reliable when using the mediCAD® software.

Patients and methods

This was a single center, retrospective study. One hundred one consecutive cases performed by a single experienced surgeon were planned retrospectively by two blinded surgeons on two separate occasions. The acetabular cup was cemented in 90 hips (89%), cementless in 11 hips (11%). A dual mobility cup was used in 21 hips (21%). The femoral stem was cemented in 60 hips (59%). The endpoint was the number of exact plans, defined as the same size as the actual implants. An acceptable match was defined as a difference of one size. The match was unacceptable if the planned and implanted size differed by more than 2 for the acetabular cup or by more than 1 size for the femoral stem. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Exact agreement was found by the first rater for 15 planned acetabular cups (15%) and for 45 planned femoral stems (45%) relative to the implants used. The second rater reached exact agreement for 20 planned acetabular cups (20%) and 50 planned femoral stems (50%). The intra-rater reliability for the acetabular cup was average (ICC = 0.57; 95%CI [0.43–0.69]) and poor (ICC = 0.38 95%CI [0.20–054]) for the 1st and 2nd rater, respectively. The intra-rater reliability for the femoral stem was poor for the 1st rater (ICC = 0.47 95%CI [0.30–0.61]) and the 2nd rater (ICC = 0.45 95%CI [0.29–0.60]). The interobserver reliability was low for the planned acetabular cup (ICC = 0.39 95%CI [0.21–0.54]) and the planned femoral stem (ICC = 0.42 95%CI [0.24–0.57]). Overall, when combining the two raters, exact prediction of the acetabular cup was achieved in 31 hips (19%) in non-obese patients and in 7 hips (21%) in obese patients (p = 0.62).

Discussion

This study found acceptable reliability of the mediCAD® software. Experience level, radiograph magnification affected the planning outcome in this study, but obesity did not. We currently do not have the ability to incorporate a reliable radiological scale for two-dimensional templating. Some surgeons prefer using a CT scan, but this costs more than conventional radiographs and exposes the patient to more radiation. This study shows that the mediCAD® software can provide satisfactory output for the preoperative planning of THA.

Level of evidence

III; retrospective, diagnostic, comparative study