Dataset Information

Precision of CT-based micromotion analysis is comparable to radiostereometry for early migration measurements in cemented acetabular cups.

ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - CT (computed tomography) based methods have lately been considered an alternative to radiostereometry (RSA) for assessing early implant migration. However, no study has directly compared the 2 methods in a clinical setting. We estimated the precision and effective radiation dose of a CT-based method and compared it with marker-based RSA in 10 patients with hip arthroplasty.Patients and methods - We included 10 patients who underwent total hip replacement with a cemented cup. CT and RSA double examinations were performed postoperatively, and precision and effective dose data were compared. The CT data was analyzed with CT micromotion analysis (CTMA) software both with and without the use of bone markers. The RSA images were analyzed with RSA software with the use of bone markers.Results - The precision of CTMA with bone markers was 0.10-0.16 mm in translation and 0.31°-0.37° in rotation. Without bone markers, the precision of CTMA was 0.10-0.16 mm in translation and 0.21°-0.31° in rotation. In comparison, the precision of RSA was 0.09-0.26 mm and 0.43°-1.69°. The mean CTMA and RSA effective dose was estimated at 0.2 mSv and 0.04 mSv, respectively.Interpretation - CTMA, with and without the use of bone markers, had a comparable precision to RSA. CT radiation doses were slightly higher than RSA doses but still at a considerably low effective dose.

SUBMITTER: Broden C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8381926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRemoval of a well-fixed, cemented acetabular component at the time of revision hip surgery can be complex. It is essential to remove the implant and cement mantle in a timely fashion while preserving bone stock and osseous integrity. The biomechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate cement and polyethylene can be utilised to aid with the removal of well cemented implants which are often harder than the surrounding bone. While removal of loose components may be relatively straightforward, the challenge for the revision arthroplasty surgeon often involves the removal of well-fixed implants. Here, we present three established techniques for the removal of a well-fixed cemented acetabular component and one novel modification we have described before.MethodWe collate and review four techniques for removing well-fixed cemented acetabular implants that utilise the different biomechanical properties of bone cement and polyethylene. These techniques are illustrated with a photographic series utilising saw bones. A step-by-step approach to our new technique is shown in photographs, both in the clinical setting and with a "Sawbone". This is accompanied by a clinical video that details the surgical technique in its entirety.ResultsThese techniques utilise different biomechanical principles to extract the acetabular component. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Our new technique is a simplification of a previously published extraction manoeuvre that utilises tensile force between cement and the implant to remove the polyethylene cup. This is a safe and reproducible technique in patients with a well-fixed cemented acetabular implant.ConclusionUnderstanding the biomechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and polyethylene can aid in the safe removal of a well-fixed cemented acetabular component in revision hip surgery. The optimal technique for removal of a cemented acetabular component varies depending on a number of patient and implant factors. This summary of the available techniques will be of interest to revision arthroplasty surgeons.

Dataset Information

Precision of CT-based micromotion analysis is comparable to radiostereometry for early migration measurements in cemented acetabular cups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets