Comparison between the accuracy of conventional and portable computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Although conventional computed tomography (CT)-based navigation provides excellent placement accuracy and clinical outcomes, whether recently introduced portable systems can achieve comparable results remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the placement accuracy and surgical outcomes of portable CT-based navigation systems. METHODS: This study assessed 56 hips of patients that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using portable CT-based navigation. Using propensity score matching based on age, sex, and body mass index, we identified 51 hips treated with portable CT-based navigation (portable CTN group) and 51 hips with conventional CT-based navigation (CTN group). The evaluation parameters included cup orientation accuracy, cup positioning, operative time, blood loss, preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and complications. RESULTS: Regarding accuracy error, the portable CTN (radiographic inclination [RI]: 2.8 ± 2.8°, radiographic anteversion [RA]: 3.8 ± 3.2°) and CTN groups (RI: 2.7 ± 1.9°, RA: 3.0 ± 2.1°) did not significantly differ. For navigation error, the portable CTN group (RI: 3.2 ± 3.2°, RA: 3.5 ± 3.1°) had significantly inferior results to the CTN group (RI: 2.2 ± 1.7°, RA: 2.3 ± 1.7°) regarding anteversion. The portable CTN group demonstrated a significantly lower accuracy, as the proportion of hips with a navigation error of > 5° was 31.4% (16 hips), compared to 11.8% (6 hips) in the CTN group. For cup position, the horizontal position error in the portable CTN group was 3.1 ± 1.8 mm, significantly less accurate than the 2.3 ± 1.9 mm in the CTN group. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcomes within the follow-up period of one year. CONCLUSION: Portable CT-based navigation was inferior to conventional CT-based navigation in terms of placement accuracy, including cup orientation and positioning. While clinical outcomes did not significantly differ at the one-year follow-up, this short-term follow-up limits conclusions on long-term clinical equivalence. Future advancements in portable CT-based navigation systems are required to improve their accuracy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Published
2026-04-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-026-06321-4
Primary Topic
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison between the accuracy of conventional and portable computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty

Hiroshi Asai, Hiroto Funahashi, Shiro Imagama, Yasuhiko Takegami et al.
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
article

Comparison between the accuracy of conventional and portable computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty

Hiroshi Asai, Hiroto Funahashi, Shiro Imagama, Yasuhiko Takegami, Yusuke Osawa
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although conventional computed tomography (CT)-based navigation provides excellent placement accuracy and clinical outcomes, whether recently introduced portable systems can achieve comparable results remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the placement accuracy and surgical outcomes of portable CT-based navigation systems. METHODS: This study assessed 56 hips of patients that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using portable CT-based navigation. Using propensity score matching based on age, sex, and body mass index, we identified 51 hips treated with portable CT-based navigation (portable CTN group) and 51 hips with conventional CT-based navigation (CTN group). The evaluation parameters included cup orientation accuracy, cup positioning, operative time, blood loss, preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and complications. RESULTS: Regarding accuracy error, the portable CTN (radiographic inclination [RI]: 2.8 ± 2.8°, radiographic anteversion [RA]: 3.8 ± 3.2°) and CTN groups (RI: 2.7 ± 1.9°, RA: 3.0 ± 2.1°) did not significantly differ. For navigation error, the portable CTN group (RI: 3.2 ± 3.2°, RA: 3.5 ± 3.1°) had significantly inferior results to the CTN group (RI: 2.2 ± 1.7°, RA: 2.3 ± 1.7°) regarding anteversion. The portable CTN group demonstrated a significantly lower accuracy, as the proportion of hips with a navigation error of > 5° was 31.4% (16 hips), compared to 11.8% (6 hips) in the CTN group. For cup position, the horizontal position error in the portable CTN group was 3.1 ± 1.8 mm, significantly less accurate than the 2.3 ± 1.9 mm in the CTN group. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcomes within the follow-up period of one year. CONCLUSION: Portable CT-based navigation was inferior to conventional CT-based navigation in terms of placement accuracy, including cup orientation and positioning. While clinical outcomes did not significantly differ at the one-year follow-up, this short-term follow-up limits conclusions on long-term clinical equivalence. Future advancements in portable CT-based navigation systems are required to improve their accuracy.

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgeryVol. 146(1)
Nagoya University Hospital (JP), Nagoya University (JP)
Nagoya University
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.