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 .
Impingement-free range of movement, acetabular component cover and early clinical results comparing 'femur-first' navigation and 'conventional' minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial.
We report the kinematic and early clinical results of a patient- and observer-blinded r and omised controlled trial in which CT scans were used to compare potential impingement-free range of movement ( ROM ) and acetabular component cover between patients treated with either the navigated ' femur-first ' total hip arthroplasty ( THA ) method ( n = 66 ; male/female 29/37 , mean age 62.5 years ; 50 to 74 ) or conventional THA ( n = 69 ; male/female 35/34 , mean age 62.9 years ; 50 to 75 ) . The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score , the Harris hip score , the Euro-Qol-5D and the Mancuso THA patient expectations score were assessed at six weeks , six months and one year after surgery . A total of 48 of the patients ( 84 % ) in the navigated ' femur-first ' group and 43 ( 65 % ) in the conventional group reached all the desirable potential ROM boundaries without prosthetic impingement for activities of daily living ( ADL ) in flexion , extension , abduction , adduction and rotation ( p = 0.016 ) . Acetabular component cover and surface contact with the host bone were > 87 % in both groups . There was a significant difference between the navigated and the conventional groups ' Harris hip scores six weeks after surgery ( p = 0.010 ) . There were no significant differences with respect to any clinical outcome at six months and one year of follow-up . The navigated ' femur-first ' technique improves the potential ROM for ADL without prosthetic impingement , although there was no observed clinical difference between the two treatment groups
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 .