A multicentre prospective assessment of the utility of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty with virtual range of motion on intraoperative implant positioning.

BACKGROUND: The growing adoption of robotic-assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA) has provided novel means through which a patient's anatomy and dynamic spinopelvic relationship can be incorporated into surgical planning. However, the impact of enhanced technologies on intraoperative decision-making and changes to component positioning has not yet been described. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study included 105 patients (52% women) patients who underwent robotic-assisted THA with the integration of software that incorporates a patient's pelvic tilt (PT) and virtual range-of-motion (VROM) for impingement modeling. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of patients who underwent changes to the preoperative plan for cup position after incorporating the data from the software. RESULTS: Utilising the intraoperative VROM information, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed from the default (40° inclination and 20° anteversion) in 82/105 (78%) cases. When stratifying by spinopelvic mobility, 64% were considered normal (change ⩾ 10° and ⩽30°), 27% were stiff (change < 10°), and 9% were hypermobile (change > 30°). For all cohorts, the majority of cases (78%) deviated from the 40° inclination and 20° version target. When evaluating the proportion of cases within the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones based on spinopelvic mobility, 19% of cases within the normal group were planned outside of both zones compared to 39% of stiff cases and 10% of hypermobile cases. CONCLUSIONS: Utilising the latest version of robotic-assisted THA software, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed in the vast majority (78%) of patients, causing substantial deviations from traditional, generic cup targets.

Estimation of Femoral Version During Total Hip Arthroplasty: Surgeon Visual Assessment versus Robotic-Arm Assisted Technology.

INTRODUCTION: Malposition of THA implants can lead to many complications, some of which may necessitate reoperation. Thus, proper implant placement is critical for optimizing patient outcomes. In addition, intraoperative visual estimation of stem position has been shown to be unreliable. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare a surgeon's visual estimation of femoral version to the actual version captured using a three-dimensional robotic-arm assisted platform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 25 THAs performed by a single surgeon was performed. The mean version, as estimated by intraoperative visual assessment, was compared to that measured by the robotic-arm assisted technology software using a two-sided t-test. Outliers were evaluated for the following intervals: 1 to 5°, 6 to 10°, and greater than 10°. A separate analysis was performed for anteverted versus retroverted stems. RESULTS: The mean version, as estimated by intraoperative visual assessment, was 9.16 ± 4.02° (range, 3 to 18°) compared to 3.52 ± 8.66° (range, -12 to 19) as measured by the robotic-arm assisted software (P=0.005). The surgeon's estimates of broach version and those measured by the robotic-arm assisted software were identical in three cases (12%). The evaluation methods differed by 1 to 5° in six cases (24%), 6 to 10° in 10 cases (40%), and greater than 10° in six cases (24%). Larger differences between methods were noted for cases in which the stem was found to be in anteversion by the robotic-arm assisted software. CONCLUSIONS: Visual estimation of femoral implant version differed significantly from measurements captured by three-dimensional robotic-arm assisted imaging. This suggests that estimating stem position intraoperatively by eye is not reliable, even when done by an experienced surgeon. The use of robotic-arm assisted technology may be recommended for determining femoral stem version intraoperatively.

Surgical Tray Optimization and Efficiency: The Impact of a Novel Sealed Sterile Container and Instrument Tray Technology.

INTRODUCTION: As bundle payments have begun focusing on orthopaedic procedures, particularly total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), surgeons and hospitals have evaluated methods for improving efficiency. Few studies have investigated the impact of novel, sealed-container and instrument-tray technology on turnover and costs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare traditional and sealed container-sterilized TKA surgical trays by: 1) investigating the setup and clean-down time in the operating room (OR); 2) examining trays processing time in central sterile supply (CS); and 3) estimating OR and CS costs and waste produced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary team determined points throughout a TKA tray single-case life cycle that could cause variations in turnover time. The times were recorded for two different TKA tray configurations. Process A utilized instruments housed in vendor trays that were "blue" wrap sterilized, while Process B employed optimized trays that were sealed container-sterilized. Times were recorded during preoperative setup and postoperative clean down in the OR and CS. Reductions in mean OR or CS times were used to estimate cost savings. Wastes were analyzed for each method. Statistical analyses using Student t-tests were used to determine statistical differences and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Overall, the use of optimized trays and sealed sterilization containers reduced the turnover time by 57 minutes and the number of trays by a mean of three. OR and CS processing yearly savings were estimated to be $249,245. Waste disposal was an estimated 10,590 ounces and 450 ounces for traditional and sealed containers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Novel sealed sterilization containers demonstrated increased efficiency in the total turnover time of TKA trays. This is important for surgeons participating in bundle payments who perform surgery in a hospital and ambulatory surgery center. Reduced turnover time could potentially increase case load and decrease the need for extra instrumentation or loaner trays. This simple means of increasing efficiency could be used as a model for surgeons wishing to streamline surgical trays and reduce costs.