Suscribirse

What is the best hip center location method to compute HKA angle in computer-assisted orthopedic surgery? In silico and in vitro comparison of four methods - 28/01/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.11.011 
Guillaume Dardenne a, b, , Zoheir Dib a, c, Nicolas Poirier b, c, Hoel Letissier a, b, c, Christian Lefèvre a, b, c, Eric Stindel a, b, c
a LaTIM, Inserm, UMR 1101, SFR IBSAM, UFR médecine, 22, avenue Camille-Desmoulins, CS 93837, 29238 Brest cedex 3, France 
b CHU de Brest, 2, avenue Foch, 29609 Brest cedex, France 
c Université de Bretagne Occidentale, UBL, 3, rue des Archives, CS 93837, 29238 Brest, France 

Corresponding author at: LATIM, UFR médecine, 22, avenue Camille-Desmoulins, CS 93837, 29238 Brest cedex 3, France.LATIM, UFR médecine22, avenue Camille-Desmoulins, CS 93837Brest cedex 329238France

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
Artículo gratuito.

Conéctese para beneficiarse!

Abstract

Background

In computer-assisted orthopedic surgery, the hip center (HC) can be determined by calculating the center of rotation of the femur in relation to the pelvis. Several methods are available: Gamage, Halvorsen, Pivot or Least-Moving Point (LMP). To our knowledge, no studies have compared these four methods. We therefore conducted in silico and in vitro experiments to assess whether their accuracy and precision in locating the HC and calculating the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle were equivalent.

Hypothesis

The four methods show similar accuracy and precision.

Patients and methods

The in silico experiment assessed the independent influence of four parameters (camera noise, acetabular noise, movement amplitude, and number of circumductions) on accuracy. The accuracy and precision of the four methods and the impact on HKA ankle calculation were assessed in an in vitro study on six cadaver limbs.

Results

In the in silico experiment, all differences according to method were significant (p<0.0002). The Pivot method was the most accurate for acetabular and camera noise, number of circumductions, and movement amplitude. With the LMP, Pivot, Gamage and Halvorsen methods, error was respectively 23.07±8.40 (range 2.10–54.67) mm, 1.98±081 (0.15–4.89) mm, 28.18±3.42 (18.57–37.60) mm and 2.84±1.46 (0.11–9.44) mm depending on camera noise, 1.65±0.72 (0.13–4.80) mm, 0.52±0.22 (0.05–1.23) mm, 3.02±0.57 (0.60–4.78) mm and 0.61±0.27 (0.04–1.82) mm depending on movement amplitude, 0.50±0.20 (0.05–1.34) mm, 0.18±0.08 (0.01–0.44) mm, 0.36±0.14 (0.03–0.80) mm and 0.21±0.09 (0.01–0.55) mm depending on number of circumductions, and 11.30±5.77 (0.56–37.87) mm, 2.78±1.47 (0.10–8.77) mm, 88.08±8.85 (60.59–117.79) mm and 24.33±9.82 (1.40–66.17) mm depending on acetabular noise. In the in vitro experiment, differences were non-significant between the Pivot and LMP methods (p>0.98) and between the Gamage and Halvorsen methods (p>0.65). With the LMP, Pivot, Gamage and Halvorsen methods, precision was respectively 8.2±4.6 (3.3–23.6) mm, 7.3±3.6 (3.4–14.1) mm, 33.6±19.1 (4.7–111.4) mm and 35.0±25.0 (4.7–132.5) mm. Accuracy was 13.5±8.2 (3.2–40.7) mm. 12.3±6.4 (3.2–23.6) mm, 47.0±33.3 (6.2–176.6) mm and 40.3±27.8 (6.1–130.3) mm. The LMP and Pivot methods were thus more accurate and more precise than the Gamage and Halvorsen methods. HKA angle error was 1.1±0.9° (0.1–3.7) and 0.9±0.8° (0.0–2.5) with the LMP and Pivot methods, and 3.2±2.7° (0.0–12.7) and 3.8±3.5° (0.0–13.3) with the Gamage and Halvorsen methods.

Discussion

The study highlighted differences between the four methods of HC location in computer-assisted surgery; the Pivot method was the most accurate and precise, thus falsifying the study hypothesis.

Level of evidence

III, prospective comparative in silico and in vitro study.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Hip center, HKA, Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery


Esquema


© 2018  Elsevier Masson SAS. Reservados todos los derechos.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 105 - N° 1

P. 55-61 - février 2019 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Free fillet lower leg flap for coverage after hemipelvectomy or hip disarticulation
  • Steven Roulet, Louis-Romée Le Nail, Gualter Vaz, Antoine Babinet, Valérie Dumaine, Aurélie Sallot, Philippe Rosset
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Kinematic alignment technique for medial OXFORD UKA: An in-silico study
  • Charles Rivière, Ciara Harman, Anthony Leong, Justin Cobb, Cedric Maillot

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.