Retained pelvic pin site debris after navigated total hip replacement: Masquerading as an early-stage chondrosarcomatous lesion

Quantifying anterior pelvic roll during total hip arthroplasty in the lateral decubitus position

BACKGROUND

Unintended pelvic positional change is an acknowledged intra-operative problem for hip arthroplasty, seen commonly with procedures performed in the lateral position. If unrecognised, such changes can dramatically alter final acetabular component anteversion potentially resulting in suboptimal construct performance. It has previously been suggested that pelvic roll of just 13° may be enough to place an otherwise perfectly orientated cup outside of conventional ± 10° safe zones. Using the real-time tracking capacity of a commercially available optical navigation system, we aimed to accurately quantify pelvic roll occurring during total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in the decubitus position.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for 107 consecutive, unilateral, THAs were interrogated to determine the magnitude of pelvic movement around a central longitudinal axis (i.e. AP roll). Correlation statistics with patient age and body mass index (BMI) were also calculated.

RESULTS

A mean pelvic roll of 9.5° was observed, being anterior in 96% of cases. Of these, 18.3% of hips had a magnitude of roll greater than 13°. There were no statistically significant independent correlations observed between age (p = 0.87) or BMI (p = 0.59) and mean roll.

CONCLUSIONS

Errors in achieving acetabular target version may result in numerous post-operative concerns including instability/dislocation, bearing wear, squeaking, range-of-movement limitation and increased revision rate. In a general cohort, our findings suggest a mean anterior pelvic roll during THA of nearly 10°. Without purposeful correction, this may cause substantial deviation from intended target positions. Future work is indicated to map changing pelvic roll during THA which is likely to follow a nonlinear trajectory. Level of evidence: IV. .

Intraperitoneal Loss of Pelvic Array Pin During Navigated Total Hip Arthroplasty

Pelvic array pin placement during navigated total hip arthroplasty has been known to cause complications; however, most of them are minor. We report a 78-year-old female who underwent a routine computer-navigated total hip replacement which was subsequently complicated by complete loss of the pelvic array pin requiring retrieval via laparotomy. No structures were injured despite the surrounding urological, vascular, and visceral anatomy. The patient recovered and subsequently underwent a total hip arthroplasty without complication 6 weeks later. This case illustrates the dangers of inserting a pelvic array pin within patients with poor bone quality and highlights necessary considerations of pin design and surgical techniques to minimize this complication.

The impact of misplaced percutaneous iliac dynamic reference frame pins used during navigated spine surgery: incidence and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Image guidance requires placement of a dynamic reference frame (DRF), often either onto local spinous process or by freehand intraosseous DRF placement into the ilium via the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). There is a paucity of studies in the literature that describe the complications of intraosseous DRF placement. The aim of this study was to describe the radiographic location, prevalence and nature of complications, and long-term clinical outcomes of attempted DRF placement into the PSIS.

METHODS

All lumbosacral spine surgical procedures performed between August 2019 and February 2021 at a single institution were queried, and operations in which a DRF was targeted to the PSIS were included. Patient demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, surgical outcomes, and complications were extracted. Intraoperative CT scans were reviewed by 2 independent researchers to determine the accuracy of DRF placement into the PSIS and to assess for DRF malposition.

RESULTS

Of 497 lumbar spine operations performed between August 2019 and February 2021 by 4 surgeons, 85 utilized intraoperative navigation with a PSIS pin. Thirteen operations were excluded due to an inability to visualize the entirety of the pin on intraoperative CT. Of 72 DRFs evaluated, 77.8% had been correctly placed in the PSIS. Of the 22.2% of DRFs not placed into the PSIS, 11 entered the sacrum, 6 crossed the sacroiliac joint, and 2 were deep enough to enter the pelvis. Pain at the pin site was present in 4 patients, of whom 3 had resolution of pain at the last follow-up evaluation. There were no significant complications due to DRF placement: no sacral fractures, significant navigation errors, retroperitoneal hematomas, or neurological deficits. Over a mean ± SD follow-up period of 9 ± 5.2 months, there were no incidences of pin site infection. Interrater reliability between the reviewers was 95.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to examine radiological and clinical outcomes after DRF placement in the PSIS. In this study, a majority of pins were correctly placed within the PSIS, although 22.2% of pins were malpositioned. There were no serious complications, and a majority of those patients with persistent pin site pain had resolution at last follow-up.