Measured vs Navigated Techniques in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Osteoarthritis, Hip Clinical Trial

Official title:

Accuracy in aChieving Optimum reconstrUction: Measured- vs. Navigation- Techniques in Hip Arthroplasty

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05393778
• Other study ID #: 3390
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: July 1, 2022
• Est. completion date: September 1, 2024

Study information

• Verified date: May 2022
• Source: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
• Contact: Isabel Horton
• Phone: 613-737-8899
• Email: ihorton[@]ohri.ca
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Accurate reconstruction of the native hip parameters following total hip arthroplasty is associated with improved outcome. In order to improve ability for optimum reconstruction, 3-D templating software can be utilized that provide detailed information regarding native anatomy. In order to achieve reconstruction within acceptable parameters as per pre-operative plan, some surgeons propose the use of intra-operative devices that measure component orientation and joint reconstruction ("Measured-THA"), whilst others propose the use of navigation tools ("Navigation-THA). Both techniques have shown superiority compared to the most commonly used "freehand" technique, but no prior study has assessed for superiority between these 2 techniques. Furthermore, to-date assessment of post-operative reconstruction has not been tested in detail as post-THA assessments are based on radiographs which provide incomplete, 2-dimensional, assessments and are lacking the important axial plane reconstruction parameters. The aims of this prospective, randomized, trial are to 1. appraise the ability to achieve the pre-operative 3-D plan (as per FormusLab) through a comparison of pre-op plan to post-operative reconstruction; 2. compare ability to accurately reconstruct hip following THA between "navigated-" (IntelliJoint®) and "measured-" techniques; and in doing so it will also 3. assess the accuracy of the intra-operative assessments of reconstruction through a comparison of objective (i.e. measured) intra-operative assessments with the post-operative reconstructions achieved.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 100
• Est. completion date: September 1, 2024
• Est. primary completion date: July 1, 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: N/A and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients who are signed for a THA for primary or secondary osteoarthritis without overt deformity that would require revision type implants and with good enough bone quality to be listed for uncemented component implantation.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Secondary OA due to Dysplasia (Hartofilakidis >1)

• Avascular necrosis of the hip with destruction of joint structure

• Sequelae of Pediatric deformity with abnormal anatomy

• Cemented fixation of femur or acetabulum

• Previous arthroplasty-type procedure

• Previous septic arthritis of the hip

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Osteoarthritis, Hip

Intervention

Procedure:
• Measured Technique
Manual intra-operative checks and tools are used to aid in component placement during surgery.
• Navigated Technique
IntelliJoint® navigation is an imageless-based navigation system that utilizes a miniature infrared camera and microelectronics to measure hip center of rotation, acetabular inclination and version, leg length, and offset. The device provides accurate real-time data on implant positioning to aid in placement of the components during surgery.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute	FormusLab

References & Publications (39)

Agarwal S, Eckhard L, Walter WL, Peng A, Hatton A, Donnelly B, de Steiger R. The Use of Computer Navigation in Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated with a Reduced Rate of Revision for Dislocation: A Study of 6,912 Navigated THA Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 Oct 20;103(20):1900-1905. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00950. — View Citation

Amuwa C, Dorr LD. The combined anteversion technique for acetabular component anteversion. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Oct;23(7):1068-70. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.025. Epub 2008 Jun 4. — View Citation

Barrack RL, Krempec JA, Clohisy JC, McDonald DJ, Ricci WM, Ruh EL, Nunley RM. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Oct 2;95(19):1760-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01704. — View Citation

Beverland DE, O'Neill CK, Rutherford M, Molloy D, Hill JC. Placement of the acetabular component. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1 Suppl A):37-43. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36343. — View Citation

Blumenfeld TJ. Pearls: Clinical Application of Ranawat's Sign. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jul;475(7):1789-1790. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5376-8. Epub 2017 May 11. — View Citation

Bonnin MP, Archbold PH, Basiglini L, Fessy MH, Beverland DE. Do we medialise the hip centre of rotation in total hip arthroplasty? Influence of acetabular offset and surgical technique. Hip Int. 2012 Jul-Aug;22(4):371-8. doi: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9350. — View Citation

Bosker BH, Verheyen CC, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJ. Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Jul;127(5):375-9. Epub 2007 Feb 13. — View Citation

Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):319-29. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1. — View Citation

Christ A, Ponzio D, Pitta M, Carroll K, Muir JM, Sculco PK. Minimal Increase in Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgical Procedural Time with the Use of a Novel Surgical Navigation Tool. Open Orthop J. 2018 Sep 28;12:389-395. doi: 10.2174/1874325001812010389. eCollection 2018. — View Citation

Dorr LD, Hishiki Y, Wan Z, Newton D, Yun A. Development of imageless computer navigation for acetabular component position in total hip replacement. Iowa Orthop J. 2005;25:1-9. — View Citation

Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):119-27. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0598-4. Epub 2008 Nov 1. — View Citation

Dorr LD, Wan Z, Malik A, Zhu J, Dastane M, Deshmane P. A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Nov;91(11):2598-604. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01225. — View Citation

Fang CJ, Shaker JM, Ward DM, Jawa A, Mattingly DA, Smith EL. Financial Burden of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital: Higher Costs and Unequal Reimbursements. J Arthroplasty. 2021 Aug;36(8):2680-2684. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.044. Epub 2021 Mar 23. — View Citation

Grammatopoulos G, Thomas GE, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW. The effect of orientation of the acetabular component on outcome following total hip arthroplasty with small diameter hard-on-soft bearings. Bone Joint J. 2015 Feb;97-B(2):164-72. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34294. — View Citation

Gross AE, Safir OA, Kuzyk PRT, Sculco PK, Wolfstadt J, Girardi BL, et al. Optimizing leg length and cup position: A surgical navigation tool. Seminars in Arthroplasty. 2018;29(3):157-60.

Gupta R, Pathak P, Singh R, Majumdar KP. Double-Stitch Technique: A Simple and Effective Method to Minimize Limb Length Discrepancy after Total Hip Arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2019 Jan-Feb;53(1):169-173. doi: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_188_18. — View Citation

Hill JC, Archbold HA, Diamond OJ, Orr JF, Jaramaz B, Beverland DE. Using a calliper to restore the centre of the femoral head during total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11):1468-74. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.29144. — View Citation

Hu X, Zheng N, Chen Y, Dai K, Dimitriou D, Li H, Tsai TY. Optimizing the Femoral Offset for Restoring Physiological Hip Muscle Function in Patients With Total Hip Arthroplasty. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Mar 30;9:645019. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.645019. eCollection 2021. — View Citation

Innmann MM, Maier MW, Streit MR, Grammatopoulos G, Bruckner T, Gotterbarm T, Merle C. Additive Influence of Hip Offset and Leg Length Reconstruction on Postoperative Improvement in Clinical Outcome After Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):156-161. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.007. Epub 2017 Aug 12. — View Citation

Jacob I, Benson J, Shanaghan K, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Acetabular positioning is more consistent with the use of a novel miniature computer-assisted device. Int Orthop. 2020 Mar;44(3):429-435. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04484-2. Epub 2020 Jan 22. — View Citation

Kievit AJ, Dobbe JGG, Mallee WH, Blankevoort L, Streekstra GJ, Schafroth MU. Accuracy of cup placement in total hip arthroplasty by means of a mechanical positioning device: a comprehensive cadaveric 3d analysis of 16 specimens. Hip Int. 2021 Jan;31(1):58-65. doi: 10.1177/1120700019874822. Epub 2019 Sep 11. — View Citation

Koper MC, Reijman M, van Es EM, Waarsing JH, Koot HWJ, Keizer SB, Jansen I, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JAN, Bos PK. No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 25;20(1):473. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2883-7. — View Citation

Lee YK, Kim JW, Kim TY, Ha YC, Koo KH. Validity of the intra-operative measurement of stem anteversion and factors for the erroneous estimation in cementless total hip arthroplasty using postero-lateral approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 May;104(3):341-346. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.11.023. Epub 2018 Feb 16. — View Citation

Meermans G, Goetheer-Smits I, Lim RF, Van Doorn WJ, Kats J. The difference between the radiographic and the operative angle of inclination of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: use of a digital protractor and the circumference of the hip to improve orientation. Bone Joint J. 2015 May;97-B(5):603-10. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B5.34781. — View Citation

Meermans G, Van Doorn WJ, Koenraadt K, Kats J. The use of the transverse acetabular ligament for determining the orientation of the components in total hip replacement: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2014 Mar;96-B(3):312-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32989. — View Citation

Merle C, Innmann MM, Waldstein W, Pegg EC, Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G. High Variability of Acetabular Offset in Primary Hip Osteoarthritis Influences Acetabular Reaming-A Computed Tomography-Based Anatomic Study. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug;34(8):1808-1814. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.065. Epub 2019 Apr 1. — View Citation

Minoda Y, Ohzono K, Aihara M, Umeda N, Tomita M, Hayakawa K. Are acetabular component alignment guides for total hip arthroplasty accurate? J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6):986-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.016. Epub 2009 Oct 17. — View Citation

Mitsutake R, Tanino H, Nishida Y, Higa M, Ito H. A simple angle-measuring instrument for measuring cemented stem anteversion during total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Feb 19;21(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-3142-7. — View Citation

Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Mar;75(2):228-32. — View Citation

Ogawa T, Takao M, Hamada H, Sakai T, Sugano N. Soft tissue tension is four times lower in the unstable primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2018 Sep;42(9):2059-2065. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-3908-9. Epub 2018 Mar 27. — View Citation

Paprosky WG, Muir JM. Intellijoint HIP(®): a 3D mini-optical navigation tool for improving intraoperative accuracy during total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016 Nov 18;9:401-408. eCollection 2016. — View Citation

Parvizi J, Benson JR, Muir JM. A new mini-navigation tool allows accurate component placement during anterior total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices (Auckl). 2018 Mar 22;11:95-104. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S151835. eCollection 2018. — View Citation

Pongkunakorn A, Chatmaitri S, Diewwattanawiwat K. Use of smartphone to improve acetabular component positioning in total hip athroplasty: A comparative clinical study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 Jan-Apr;27(1):2309499019825578. doi: 10.1177/2309499019825578. Erratum in: J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 Jan-Apr;27(1):2309499019834501. — View Citation

Schiffner E, Latz D, Jungbluth P, Grassmann JP, Tanner S, Karbowski A, Windolf J, Schneppendahl J. Is computerised 3D templating more accurate than 2D templating to predict size of components in primary total hip arthroplasty? Hip Int. 2019 May;29(3):270-275. doi: 10.1177/1120700018776311. Epub 2018 May 20. — View Citation

Schwarzkopf R, Muir JM, Paprosky WG, Seymour S, Cross MB, Vigdorchik JM. Quantifying Pelvic Motion During Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a New Surgical Navigation Device. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):3056-3060. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.046. Epub 2017 May 4. — View Citation

Shon WY, Baldini T, Peterson MG, Wright TM, Salvati EA. Impingement in total hip arthroplasty a study of retrieved acetabular components. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20(4):427-35. — View Citation

Singh V, Realyvasquez J, Simcox T, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Davidovitch RI. Robotics Versus Navigation Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does the Use of Technology Yield Superior Outcomes? J Arthroplasty. 2021 Aug;36(8):2801-2807. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.074. Epub 2021 Mar 5. — View Citation

Snijders T, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A. Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2017 Dec;13(4). doi: 10.1002/rcs.1843. Epub 2017 May 29. Review. — View Citation

Steppacher SD, Kowal JH, Murphy SB. Improving cup positioning using a mechanical navigation instrument. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):423-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1553-8. — View Citation

* Note: There are 39 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Change in Pain Assessment - Oxford Hip Score	The Oxford Hip Score will be given to patients to assess subjective measures of hip pain. Scores for each question from 0 to 4 with 4 being the best outcome. This method, when summed, produces overall scores running from 0 to 48 with 48 being the best outcome	once pre-operatively and once one-year post-operatively
Primary	Change in mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression- EuroQol	the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) will be given to patients to assess subjective measures mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.; Each dimension in the EQ-5D-5L has five response levels: no problems (Level 1); slight; moderate; severe; and extreme problems (Level 5). The maximum score of 1 indicates the best health state, by contrast with the scores of individual questions, where higher scores indicate more severe or frequent problems.	once pre-operatively and once one-year post-operatively
Primary	Change in physical, mental, and social health- PROMIS Global-10	the PROMIS Global-10 will be given to patients to assess subjective measures of physical, mental and social health. It is a 10-item patient-reported questionnaire in which the response options are presented as 5-point (as well as a single 11-point) rating scales. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. Higher scores indicate worse physical and mental health	once pre-operatively and once one-year post-operatively
Primary	Adverse Events	Serious adverse events will be monitored. This includes: Wound complication; Dislocation; Fracture; Infection; Re-operation; Revision surgery	90 days post-operatively
Secondary	Accuracy of reconstruction (in mm)	A measure (in mm) of how close the planned to actual reconstruction using the aforementioned reconstruction parameters. This will be assessed using: Acetabular component orientation; Accuracy of acetabular component orientation; o Accuracy of femoral version restoration; Combined version of arthroplasty in degrees; Accuracy of combined version restoration; Femoral Offset in mm; o Accuracy of achieving femoral offset; Acetabular offset in mm; o Accuracy of achieving acetabular offset; Total offset in mm; o Accuracy of achieving total offset; Leg Length in mm o Accuracy of achieving leg length	post-operatively (within one week post-operatively)
Secondary	Comparison of margin of error	This outcome will measure what the margin of error is between intra-operatively measured values and those determined from the post-operative CT scan. This will be done using statistical analysis of data for patients in both study arms.	Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Secondary	Accuracy of reconstruction on outcome	This outcome measure will assess the accuracy of reconstruction correlate with outcome (adverse events and PROMs). This will be done by analyzing accuracy as depicted by the variables in outcome measure 5, and how these measures of accuracy correlate to patient reported outcome measure scores and rates of adverse events	Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Secondary	Accuracy of reconstruction (in degrees)	A measure (in degrees) of how close the planned to actual reconstruction using the aforementioned reconstruction parameters. This will be assessed using: Acetabular component orientation (Radiographic inclination/anteversion in degrees as per Murray); Accuracy of acetabular component orientation (i.e. deviation from target - aim for deviation of < ±5°); ? Femoral Component Version in degrees; Accuracy of femoral version restoration (aim for version difference to be less than ±5° from pre-operative plan); ? Combined version of arthroplasty in degrees; Accuracy of combined version restoration (sum of acetabular and femoral version; aim for combined version to be less than ±10° from pre-operative plan)	post-operatively (within one week post-operatively)