Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Does intraoperative fluoroscopy improve acetabular component positioning and limb-length discrepancy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 586 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The positioning of implant components for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is essential for joint stability, polyethylene liner wear, and range of motion. One potential benefit of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for THA is the ability to use intraoperative fluoroscopy for acetabular cup positioning and limb-length evaluation. Previous studies comparing intraoperative fluoroscopy with no fluoroscopy during DAA have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether intraoperative fluoroscopy improves component positioning compared to no fluoroscopy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted. We searched Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Highwire, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang database in May 2023 to identify studies involving intraoperative fluoroscopy versus no fluoroscopy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Finally, we identified 1262 hips assessed in seven studies.

Results

There were no significant differences in terms of acetabular cup inclination angle (ACIA, P = 0.21), ACIA within safe zone rate (P = 0.97), acetabular cup anteversion angle (ACAA, P = 0.26); ACAA within safe zone rate (P = 0.07), combined safe zone rate (P = 0.33), and limb-length discrepancy (LLD, P = 0.21) between two groups.

Conclusion

Even though intraoperative fluoroscopy was not related to an improvement in cup location or LDD. With fewer experienced surgeons, the benefit of intraoperative fluoroscopy might become more evident. More adequately powered and well-designed long-term follow-up studies were required to determine whether the application of the intraoperative fluoroscopy for direct anterior total hip arthroplasty will have clinical benefits and improve the survival of prostheses.

Introduction

There is confusion and debate regarding the impact of intraoperative fluoroscopy on component position and limb-length discrepancy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty (DATHA). According to certain studies [1,2,3], there was no statistically or clinically significant difference in acetabular inclination and anteversion or LLD between the groups who underwent fluoroscopy and those who did not. According to several other researches, intraoperative fluoroscopy during DATHA would enhance acetabular component location or limb-length disparity compared to no fluoroscopy [4, 5]. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis compares the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy and no intraoperative fluoroscopy during DATHA. So, we conducted a thorough systematic research analysis to evaluate the evidence comparing intraoperative fluoroscopy to no fluoroscopy during DATHA. Specifically, our goal was to compare the following: (1) acetabular cup inclination angle (ACIA); (2) ACIA within safe zone rate; (3) acetabular cup anteversion angle (ACAA); (4) ACAA within safe zone rate; (5) combined safe zone rate; and (6) limb-length discrepancy (LLD).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement’s requirements were followed for conducting the study [6]. This study’s protocol was made PROSPERO-registered (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), and the registration number was CRD42022316521.

Search strategy

We conducted a literature screening for original articles published before May 1, 2023. We searched Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Highwire, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang database to identify studies involving intraoperative fluoroscopy versus no fluoroscopy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. The keywords used were "total hip arthroplasty," "total hip replacement," "direct anterior approach," "fluoroscopy," "X-ray," manual in conjunction with Boolean operators, "AND" or "OR." We used the Review Manager software to perform the meta-analysis. Articles were preliminarily screened by two independent reviewers (W.G.L and Q.M.) using the title and abstract to identify those that met inclusion criteria. The full text of each study that passed a preliminary review was then subjected to full-text review by two reviewers (C.J.S and Z.Z.) using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria

We identified and included all articles comparing intraoperative and no fluoroscopy during DATHA in the search strategy. If studies met the following requirements, they were included for further evaluation: (1) The THA procedure was performed with a direct anterior approach. (2) Intraoperative fluoroscopy was involved. (3) The comparator was no fluoroscopy in the comparative study. (4) One or more of the indices below were reported: ACIA, ACIA within safe zone rate, ACAA, ACAA within safe zone rate, combined safe zone rate, and LLD. We presented detailed definitions of some outcomes in Table 1. We excluded: (1) studies that revision of THA was performed. (2) Unclear or incomplete sample data were available.

Table 1 Definition of some outcomes
Full size table

Data extraction process

The search strategy identified and included all articles comparing intraoperative and no fluoroscopy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Two independent investigators screened each study for inclusion in the meta-analysis and independently extracted the data that were accessible from each study. We extracted the data based on the following: (1) research features (i.e., authors, year of publication, country, type of study), (2) population information (i.e., age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and follow-up time); and (3) clinical information (i.e., outcomes). If necessary results are omitted, we will email the authors to get further information.

Data transformation

Some studies reported outcomes data using the median, minimum, and maximum values, or the median and first and third quartiles. We estimated the sample’s mean with the method presented by Luo et al. [7] and the sample’s standard deviation (SD) based on the method presented by Wan et al. [8] so that we could include these data in our meta-analysis. This method of estimating mean and standard deviation values has proven reliable [9,10,11,12].

Assessment of studies

We used the nine-star Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a proven, validated tool for evaluating the quality of non-randomized research, to rate the non-randomized studies’ methodological quality [13]. The NOS focused on the selection and comparability of cohorts and assessing outcomes and follow-up. Each study was evaluated for quality by two separate researchers, and a third researcher settled any disagreements.

Statistical analysis

We performed all statistical analyses with Review Manager (version 5.4 for MAC, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Data were presented as mean ± SD. We used the I2 and Q test to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. P values ≤ 0.1 or I2 value > 50% suggested high heterogeneity; thus, we used the randomized effects model. Otherwise, we used the fixed effects model [14]. The combined and individual effect sizes were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In each study, we used the odds ratio (OR) and relevant 95% confidence interval (CI) to measure dichotomous variables such as ACIA within safe zone rate, ACAA within safe zone rate, and combined safe zone rate. Reported OR was supposed to approximate RR (relative risk) based on Cornfield’s rare disease outcome assumption [15]. We used the mean difference (MD) to assess continuous outcomes such as ACIA, ACAA, and LLD with a 95% confidence interval (CI). If the P values were less than 0.05, we regarded the results as having a statistically significant difference. The stability of the findings was evaluated using sensitivity analysis (if necessary).

Results

Search results

Figure 1 depicts the literature search and selection process. Finally, seven publications were included in our meta-analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1 shows the detailed literature screening process. According to the literature search strategy described earlier, 198 relevant citations were identified from the databases. After deleting 155 duplicates, we obtained 43 articles. Upon review of the titles and abstracts of the 43 articles, 27 irrelevant clinical studies were excluded. By reading the 16 full-text articles, we excluded another nine articles for the following reasons: systematic reviews, no compare groups, and no useful outcome data. The remaining seven articles were deemed appropriate. Finally, we identified 1262 patients (1262 THAs) assessed in seven articles.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The literature search and selection process

Full size image

Study characteristics and quality

We presented detailed baseline characteristics information in Tables 2 and 3. All the included studies were published in English and Chinese between 2014 and 2021.

Table 2 The detailed baseline characteristics information
Full size table
Table 3 The detailed information of outcomes
Full size table

Risk-of-bias assessment

The included studies’ methodological quality scores ranged from seven to eight (Table 4). The overall quality of the studies that were included was therefore deemed adequate.

Table 4 Risk-of-bias assessment for the studies included in the meta-analysis (NOS)
Full size table

ACIA

Seven studies reported ACIA; the pooled data showed that the ACIA was not significantly different between the two groups (MD = 1.17 95% CI [− 0.67, 3.01], P = 0.21 Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The pooled data showed that the ACIA was not significantly different between the two groups (MD = 1.17 95% CI [− 0.67, 3.01], P = 0.21)

Full size image

ACIA within safe zone rate

Five studies reported the ACIA rate. The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACIA rates (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.33, 3.19], P = 0.97 Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACIA rates (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.33, 3.19], P = 0.97)

Full size image

ACAA

Seven studies reported on the ACAA. The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACAA (MD = − 0.95, 95% CI [− 2.62, 0.72], P = 0.26 Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACAA (MD = -0.95, 95% CI [− 2.62, 0.72], P = 0.26)

Full size image

ACAA within safe zone rate

Five studies reported the ACAA rate. The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACAA rates (OR = 2.51, 95% CI [0.94, 6.68], P = 0.07 Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar ACAA rates (OR = 2.51, 95% CI [0.94, 6.68], P = 0.07)

Full size image

Combined safe zone rate

Four studies reported a combined safe zone rate. The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar combined safe zone rate (OR = 1.77, 95% CI [0.56, 5.60], P = 0.33 Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar combined safe zone rate (OR = 1.77, 95% CI [0.56, 5.60], P = 0.33)

Full size image

LDD

Three studies reported LDD. The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar LDD (MD = − 1.63, 95% CI [− 4.17,0.91], P = 0.21 Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

The forest plot revealed that both groups experienced similar LDD (MD = − 1.63, 95% CI [− 4.17, 0.91], P = 0.21)

Full size image

Discussion

The study’s key findings include the lack of a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding cup anteversion and inclination measurements. Additionally, there were no discernible variations in the detection of LLD between the two groups.

One of the most crucial elements in the success of THA is the proper location of the acetabular component. Harrison et al. [18] and Lewinnek et al. [19] both reported on the impact of cup abduction and anteversion on the chance of dislocation. The distance that the femoral head must travel to dislocate is shortened when the cup is positioned too vertically, anteverted, or retroverted [18, 19, 19, 20]. Lewinnek suggested a "safe zone" of 30° to 50° of abduction and 5° to 25° of anteversion for the insertion of acetabular components [19]. Additionally, longer-term findings demonstrate that cup position outside the safe zone range has been linked to decreased bone support, higher polyethylene wear, edge loading, impingement, ceramic squeaking, and increased rates of adverse tissue reaction in metal-on-metal hips.

Numerous methods have been developed to optimize component placing, including using anatomic landmarks, intraoperative radiographs, and more modern technology such as computer navigation, robotics, computer navigation, and patient-specific positioning devices [21,22,23,24,25]. Fluoroscopy is frequently employed to achieve the appropriate anteversion and inclination of the acetabular component [29, 32].

Recent years have seen an upsurge in using the direct anterior approach (DAA) for THA [26]. The approach is said to have a variety of advantages, according to its proponents, including a slight advantage in early recovery [27], a low dislocation rate [28], and excellent radiographic component placement parameters [29]. The DAA’s ability to capture intraoperative fluoroscopic pictures while the patient is supine for implant placement is another advantage [30, 31]. Some surgeons have highlighted fluoroscopy’s simplicity of use as a potential advantage of the strategy. It might increase surgical accuracy for acetabular component location and determining leg length, enhancing wear rates, range of motion, and stability. However, our findings showed that intraoperative fluoroscopy did not significantly improve implant location and leg-length assessment during DATHA. The results of direct anterior total hip arthroplasty with fluoroscopy are comparable to those without fluoroscopy.

When assessing the results of our meta-analysis, there are additional considerations to make. Most of the data used in the current meta-analysis came from hospitals where the surgeons were skilled in doing DATHA. Generally, the surgeon’s training level conducting DATHA affects the likelihood of problems [32]. Although the included studies did not discuss the benefits of fluoroscopy for surgeons with less experience or surgeons in lower-volume hospitals, this group of surgeons is expected to benefit more from intraoperative fluoroscopy. However, there are also potential disadvantages related to its use, including the extra time required to get the images, higher costs, radiation exposure for both the patient and surgical team, and some worry that the sterile fluoroscopy arm covering may become contaminated during the operation [33,34,35,36,37,38]. If the patient benefits from these drawbacks, these disadvantages may be acceptable.

Although many surgeons have used the so-called safe zone as their paradigm, recent research has called into question this idea [39], with the revelation that dislocation is more complex than simply taking into account acetabular component angulation characteristics [40]. Because cementless components are comprised of materials that have different levels of radio-opacity, measuring anteversion with intraoperative fluoroscopy can be difficult and inaccurate. Particularly in these situations, determining the proper posture could be best guided by markers from the local anatomy. We should also consider the acetabular cup’s orientation to the specific patient conditions, including hip-spine pathology, spinal stiffness, or a defective anterior wall [41].

It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the data set while evaluating our results. Firstly, there is a paucity of prospective, comparative studies and randomized controlled trials, which may have reduced the quality of the evidence for this meta-analysis. The results and conclusions need to be confirmed by other prospective randomized trials examining additional clinical indicators, even though we have already included all relevant studies and made an effort to gather more data for this meta-analysis and to evaluate its impact. Secondly, there was an essential variability between the studies with respect to the different variations in the radiographs obtained. Obtaining pelvis radiographs is standardized to center the pubic symphysis over the coccyx and to obtain them standing with a marker ball. However, despite this, there could be slight differences in rotation between radiographs, causing some variability in the radiographic measurements. Thirdly, these studies’ follow-up duration is still short. Studies with longer follow-ups and well-defined groups randomized to DATHA with or without an intraoperative radiograph would provide valuable data for analysis. Fourthly, our meta-analysis purely discusses radiographs findings (inclination and anti-version angles, as well as LLD). We do not analyze the dislocation rate. Because there are many factors associated with dislocation, the position of the prosthesis on imaging is only one of the influencing factors. Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis used the right approach and included some papers that provided information on numerous measurement outcomes from the intraoperative fluoroscopy and no fluoroscopy groups.

Conclusion

Even though intraoperative fluoroscopy was not related to an improvement in cup location or leg-length discrepancy, it should be emphasized that with fewer experienced surgeons, the benefit of intraoperative fluoroscopy might become more obvious. More adequately powered and well-designed long-term follow-up studies were required to determine whether the application of the intraoperative fluoroscopy for direct anterior total hip arthroplasty will have clinical benefits and improve the survival of prostheses.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

DAA:

Direct anterior approach

DATHA:

Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty

ACIA:

Acetabular cup inclination angle

ACAA:

Acetabular cup anteversion angle

LLD:

Limb-length discrepancy

CIs:

Confidence intervals

RR:

Risk ratio

OR:

Odds ratio

VMD:

Weighted mean difference

BMI:

Body mass index

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

RCS:

Retrospective cohort study

PCS:

Prospective cohort study

EMBASE:

Excerpta Medica Database

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CNKI:

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

References

  1. Holst DC, Levy DL, Angerame MR, Yang CC. Does the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy improve postoperative radiographic component positioning and implant size in total hip arthroplasty utilizing a direct anterior approach? Arthroplasty Today. 2020;6:94–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Summers S, Ocksrider J, Lezak B, Zachwieja EC, Schneiderbauer MM. Intra-operative referencing technique is non-inferior to use of fluoroscopy for acetabular component positioning in anterior hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthopaed Trauma. 2020;15:71–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bingham JS, Spangehl MJ, Hines JT, Taunton MJ, Schwartz AJ. Does intraoperative fluoroscopy improve limb-length discrepancy and acetabular component positioning during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:2927–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hu L, Shang X. Reliability of fluoroscopy in controlling the position of the component and the length of the lower limbs in total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach in lateral position [Master’s degree, https://doi.org/10.26921/d.cnki.ganyu.2020.000993]. Anhui Medical University; 2020.

  5. Goodman GP, Goyal N, Parks NL, Hopper RH, Hamilton WG. Intraoperative fluoroscopy with a direct anterior approach reduces variation in acetabular cup abduction angle. Hip Int. 2017;27:573–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350: g7647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:1785–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ow ZGW, Cheang HLX, Koh JH, Koh JZE, Lim KK-L, Wang D, et al. Does the choice of acellular scaffold and augmentation with bone marrow aspirate concentrate affect short-term outcomes in cartilage repair? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211069565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zwiers R, Miedema T, Wiegerinck JI, Blankevoort L, van Dijk CN. Open versus endoscopic surgical treatment of posterior ankle impingement: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50:563–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lex JR, Edwards TC, Packer TW, Jones GG, Ravi B. Perioperative systemic dexamethasone reduces length of stay in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1168–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fenelon C, Murphy EP, Fahey EJ, Murphy RP, O’Connell NM, Queally JM. Total knee arthroplasty in hemophilia: survivorship and outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37:581-592.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cornfield J. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1951;11:1269–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jennings JD, Iorio J, Kleiner MT, Gaughan JP, Star AM. Intraoperative fluoroscopy improves component position during anterior hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2015;38:e970–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leucht P, Huddleston HG, Bellino MJ, Huddleston JI. Does intraoperative fluoroscopy optimize limb length and the precision of acetabular positioning in primary THA? Orthopedics. 2015;38:e380–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrison CL, Thomson AI, Cutts S, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. Research synthesis of recommended acetabular cup orientations for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:377–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:762–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barrack RL, Krempec JA, Clohisy JC, McDonald DJ, Ricci WM, Ruh EL, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg A. 2013;95:1760–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun C, Yang K, Li H, Cai X. Application of robotic systems in hip replacement. Chin Med J. 2018;98:3042–4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fontalis A, Putzeys P, Plastow R, Giebaly DE, Kayani B, Glod F, et al. Functional component positioning in total hip arthroplasty and the role of robotic-arm assistance in addressing spinopelvic pathology. Orthop Clin North Am. 2023;54:121–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Constantinescu DS, Costello JP, Dalling AD, Wagner JD, Al-Hardan W, Carvajal JA. The efficacy of patient specific instrumentation (PSI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop. 2022;34:404–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber M, Meyer M, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Renkawitz T. The superiority of navigation and robotics in hip arthroplasty: fact or myth? Orthopade. 2021;50:270–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Streck LE, Boettner F. Achieving precise cup positioning in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a narrative review. Medicina. 2023;59:271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel N, Golwala P. Approaches for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Cureus. 2023;15: e34829.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ang JJM, Onggo JR, Stokes CM, Ambikaipalan A. Comparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03528-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jin Z, Wang L, Qin J, Hu H, Wei Q. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Med. 2023;55:1378–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin TJ, Bendich I, Ha AS, Keeney BJ, Moschetti WE, Tomek IM. A comparison of radiographic outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between the posterior approach and direct anterior approach with intraoperative fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rathod PA, Bhalla S, Deshmukh AJ, Rodriguez JA. Does fluoroscopy with anterior hip arthroplasty decrease acetabular cup variability compared with a nonguided posterior approach? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1877–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Mirza AJ, Lombardi AV, Morris MJ, Berend KR. A mini-anterior approach to the hip for total joint replacement: optimising results: improving hip joint replacement outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:32–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Burnham RR Jr, Kiernan H, Ortega LF, Wesolowski M, Tauchen A, Russo M, Gerscovich D, Brown NM, et al. Defining the learning curve of anterior total hip arthroplasty after fellowship-specific training. J Am Academy Orthopaed Surg. 2022;30:e131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Daryoush JR, Lancaster AJ, Frandsen JJ, Gililland JM. Occupational hazards to the joint replacement surgeon: radiation exposure. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37:1464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kirchner GJ, Smith NP, Dunleavy ML, Nikkel LE. Intraoperative imaging in total hip arthroplasty is cost-effective regardless of surgical approach. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37:S803–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gershkovich GE, Tiedeken NC, Hampton D, Budacki R, Samuel SP, Saing M. A comparison of three C-arm draping techniques to minimize contamination of the surgical field. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30:e351-356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Peters PG, Laughlin RT, Markert RJ, Nelles DB, Randall KL, Prayson MJ. Timing of C-arm drape contamination. Surg Infect. 2012;13:110–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pomeroy CL, Mason JB, Fehring TK, Masonis JL, Curtin BM. Radiation exposure during fluoro-assisted direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1742–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McArthur BA, Schueler BA, Howe BM, Trousdale RT, Taunton MJ. Radiation exposure during fluoroscopic guided direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1565–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What safe zone? the vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:386–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seagrave KG, Troelsen A, Malchau H, Husted H, Gromov K. Acetabular cup position and risk of dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2017;88:10–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, Buckland AJ, Elbuluk AM, Eftekhary N, Mayman DJ, et al. Otto Aufranc award: a simple hip-spine classification for total hip arthroplasty: validation and a large multicentre series. Bone Joint J. 2021;103:17–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xu Cai and Zhe Zhao contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-corresponding author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, No.168 Litang Road, Dongxiaokou Town, Changping District, Beijing, 102218, China

    Changjiao Sun, Qi Ma, Zhe Zhao & Xu Cai

  2. FRCS (Edinburgh) Kuching Specialist Hospital Sarawak, Tabuan Stutong Commercial Centre, 93350, Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia

    Woo Guan Lee

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, No.168 Litang Road, Dongxiaokou Town, Changping District, Beijing, 102218, China

    Xiaofei Zhang

Authors
  1. Changjiao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woo Guan Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaofei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhe Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xu Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CS and XC conceptualized the study. CS and WGL curated the data, and CS, QM, XZ helped in formal analysis. CS investigated and validated the study and wrote the original draft. ZZ and XC supervised the study. ZZ was involved in visualization.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhe Zhao or Xu Cai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval is not required because this study is based on existing literature.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, C., Lee, W.G., Ma, Q. et al. Does intraoperative fluoroscopy improve acetabular component positioning and limb-length discrepancy during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 586 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04023-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04023-w

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X