TP4.3 Accuracy of Patient Specific Guide to Achieve Pre-Operatively Templated Correction of Hip Dysplasia with PAO

Clicks: 12
ID: 331155
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #133 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Patient-specific instrumentation is available to guide correction of hip dysplasia with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Accuracy of the guides used to achieve a pre-operatively templated correction has not been critically assessed. The goal of this work was to compare the accuracy of the Medacta MyPAO system to position the acetabular fragment in a pre-operatively templated position. Methods Ten patients (average age 20.6 years, n=10 female) underwent PAO to treat hip dysplasia. Each patient’s correction was planned from CT images using the MyPAO system by Medacta. Patient-specific guides were used intraoperatively to achieve the correction, and a pelvis CT was collected 2 days after surgery. Postoperative CT scans were segmented in Materialise Mimics, and the resulting 3D surface models were imported into Geomagic Design X for orientation into an anatomy-based coordinate system. The surface model of the planned correction was aligned to the postoperative hip by surface matching the non-acetabular region of the pelvis. Differences in hip center between the planned and actual postoperative correction were calculated as the difference between centers of spheres fit to the weight-bearing acetabular subchondral bone. After adjusting to align acetabular centers, a custom algorithm was used to calculate acetabular coverage in 1-degree increments around the acetabular rim. These were binned into relevant anatomic regional coverage assessments. Results The postoperative acetabular center ranged from 1.4 mm posterior to 3.2 mm anterior to, and up to 3.1 mm inferior to the planned acetabular center. The postoperative center was lateral to the planned center in 8/10 hips (by up to 9.3 mm). Coverage was within an average of 1.9±1.6° in the anterior acetabular region, 3.0±2.1° in the anterior superior region, and 3.2±2.9° in the superior region. Coverage differences between planned and postoperative correction were greatest in the posterior superior (5.5±4.2°) and posterior (8.4±9.0°) regions. Conclusion Intraoperative PAO guidance hardware appears to be useful for achieving targeted coverage corrections at multiple locations around the acetabular rim. Advances in these systems will be needed to improve postoperative agreement with planned joint center location and the ability to achieve the templated posterior coverage.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220407867 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jessica E. Goetz, Holly Aitken, Taylor Murray, Michael Willey
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.156
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.156
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.