Results Significant differences were found in the femoral offset and overall complication rate between the conventional and navigation groups .
Additionally , the conventional group had significantly less anteversion than the navigation group .
However , the navigation group had significantly better inclination .
The operation time was significantly shorter in the conventional than navigation group .
Conclusion Both the OrthoPilot navigation system and conventional total hip arthroplasty result in significant improvements in patient function with similar overall complication rates and have their own advantages in achieving good cup position .
The conventional procedure has a shorter operation time than does use of a navigation system
Objective This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy between the OrthoPilot navigation system and conventional manual surgery in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty .
What do we get from navigation in primary THA?
Navigation in primary total hip arthroplasty has a history of over 20 years . During this process , imageless computer navigation can be particularly helpful in optimally restoring the hip ’s biomechanics . This involves the accurate placement of the acetabular component with the determination of the anteversion and abduction , whereby the navigated femur-first technique also allows for a calculation of the combined anteversion . Additional critical parameters such as the reconstruction of the rotation centre , as well as the femoral and acetabular offset , can also be optimally adjusted . Last but not least , an intra-operative evaluation and equalisation of the leg length is possible . Nonetheless , the disadvantages of this surgical technique in terms of the high costs in the acquisition and preservation of the necessary devices , as well as the longer operation time , must be taken into account . However , economic aspects are not the only thing preventing widespread use of the navigation technique . Determining the plane of reference ( APP ) for the optimal orientation of the implants is based on palpation of the bony l and marks – and this is influenced by the thickness of the soft tissue layer . Furthermore , the experience of the surgeon constitutes a variable that influences the accuracy of navigation . In summary , hip navigation certainly offers an interesting technique for the optimisation of  total hip arthroplasty with reconstruction of proper biomechanics . At the same time , there is currently a lack of high- quality r and omised controlled long-term trials that evaluate the clinical advantage for the patients , together with cost utility and survival rates . Cite this article : Renner L , Janz V , Perka C , Wassilew GI . What do we get from navigation in primary THA ? EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:205 - 210 . 10.1302/2058 - 5241.1.000034
Results Significant differences were found in the femoral offset and overall complication rate between the conventional and navigation groups .
Additionally , the conventional group had significantly less anteversion than the navigation group .
However , the navigation group had significantly better inclination .
The operation time was significantly shorter in the conventional than navigation group .
Conclusion Both the OrthoPilot navigation system and conventional total hip arthroplasty result in significant improvements in patient function with similar overall complication rates and have their own advantages in achieving good cup position .
The conventional procedure has a shorter operation time than does use of a navigation system
Objective This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy between the OrthoPilot navigation system and conventional manual surgery in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty .