Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis: still a very valuable tool in the orthopaedic research armamentarium
2022; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery; Volume: 11; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1302/2046-3758.114.bjr-2021-0593.r1
ISSN2046-3758
AutoresAndreas Fontalis, Fares S. Haddad,
Tópico(s)Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
ResumoBone & Joint ResearchVol. 11, No. 4 EditorialOpen AccessOpen Access licenseRoentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis: still a very valuable tool in the orthopaedic research armamentariumCrossMarkAndreas Fontalis, Fares S. HaddadAndreas FontalisTrauma and Orthopaedic Specialist Registrar Andreas Fontalis. E-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected]https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-288X Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK , Fares S. HaddadProfessor of Orthopaedic and Sports Surgery Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, London, UK The Bone & Joint Journal , The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery, London, UK Published Online:4 Apr 2022https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.114.BJR-2021-0593.R1AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to Favourites ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) was first introduced by Selvik in 1974 to assess implant micromotion.1 The standard RSA setup involves two synchronous X-ray tubes directed at a 20° angle relative to the normal vector, and a calibration plate positioned underneath the table. The calibration box contains reference markers to define the coordinates and standardize the position of the foci.2Traditionally, the analysis entailed the reconstruction of a 3D position of the implant, based on markers (usually tantalum beads) attached to the implant and surrounding bone. The marker-based analysis is characterized by high accuracy and precision, although the integration of tantalum markers on the implant became a matter of concern, particularly as it could generate local stress risers. To overcome this, the concept of model-based RSA was introduced, whereby inert tantalum beads are inserted into the bone around the prosthesis. These act as fixed reference points from which the spatial resolution and rotation of the implant can be calculated, averting the need to attach markers to the implant.2,3 Subsequently, the implant silhouette detected by the RSA radiograph is matched to a virtual 3D model of the prosthesis obtained from the manufacturer or via reverse engineering.2RSA has been widely used in the assessment of implant stability and survivorship in joint arthroplasty, with the evaluation of biological fixation and implant migration used as a surrogate for survivorship.4-7 The importance of implant survival is paramount; hence there is growing interest in elucidating how RSA migration analysis relates to long-term stability and clinically meaningful outcomes, e.g. aseptic loosening and revision. Reports have suggested that early micromotion can be predictive of mechanical loosening and failure.8-10 These observations are corroborated by an important study that reported a strong correlation between the two-year migration evidenced by RSA and long-term fixation, suggesting the suitability of early RSA results as a surrogate for long-term fixation.11A potential advantage of cementless implants is that they can achieve better osseointegration, by replicating the elasticity and mechanical properties of trabecular bone.12,13 Recently, two-year results of implant migration were reported between a novel, cruciate-retaining cementless 3D-printed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with a similarly designed cemented TKA. The authors established that cementless implants exhibited more migration than cemented prostheses two years postoperatively.6 However, we must recognize that migration is implant-dependent and behaviour should be scrutinized individually. Pooling RSA data of cementless and cemented implants is not methodologically sound. In their analysis of the implant migration of three cemented and five cementless designs, Laende et al14 found that different migration patterns were evident with different methods of fixation. Furthermore, the higher initial migration during the first year, commonly observed with cementless implants, has not been linked to inferior long-term fixation. This could be due to an initial 'settling' phase, during which bone growth and osseointegration are achieved. Following this period, cementless implants have displayed great stability15 and excellent survivorship,16,17 while cemented tibial components are still at risk of debonding at the cement-implant interface, cement delamination, and other cement-related complications. Consequently, we need to revisit the acceptable RSA migration thresholds in cemented and cementless TKA.RSA remains a valuable tool in the research armamentarium, with RSA data interpreted along with other radiological, surgical, and patient-centred outcomes.18-20 Over the last decade, the arthroplasty world has witnessed a growth in new implant designs, such as the ATTUNE prosthesis, aimed at improving patellofemoral kinematics and mid-flexion stability. A key study using model-based RSA compared migration, and clinical and patient-reported outcomes, between the ATTUNE design and PFC-sigma design.21 The authors reported comparable tibial component migration at two years, but with more radiolucent lines observed at the implant-cement interface with the ATTUNE design, reinforcing that additional radiological parameters should be considered. Moreover, we need to be attentive to the failure mode, as there are exceptions in the behaviour of each implant. A recent paper studying clinical outcomes of the ATTUNE TKA design revealed a revision rate of 11.5%, the majority of which was attributed to debonding of the tibial component.22 Thus, RSA is a very useful marker, but cannot be used as the sole indicator of an implant's longevity.Recently, we have seen proponents of asymmetrical tibial baseplate designs, highlighting the most precise anatomical match to the proximal tibia. Koster et al23 published the two-year results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the migration of an asymmetrical and symmetrical tibial design in TKA. In 69 patients, they found comparable migration with reference to the maximum total point motion (MTPM), suggesting a similar anticipated aseptic loosening risk. However, to adjudicate longevity and fixation, additional parameters such as tibial coverage should be examined. Maximizing tibial coverage is critical to avoiding malrotation, flexion-extension gap mismatch, and patellar maltracking.24 It has also been postulated to result in improved load transfer to the proximal tibia and, conceptually, greater fixation.25 In light of early reports suggesting an inferior tibial plateau coverage with asymmetrical baseplates,26 the need to interpret RSA data alongside other radiological and surgical parameters is imperative. Furthermore, there has been a sharp increase in the percentage of younger patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).27 The desire for short stems, bone preservation, and better load-transfer has paralleled the altering demographics of THA.27 The role of RSA has once again been vital in assessing micromotion and adjudicating the safety of these designs.4,21,28Other potential applications of RSA include in vivo linear and volumetric wear using model-based radiostereometric analysis.29-33 Gascoyne et al30 used model-based RSA to evaluate linear and volumetric polyethylene (PE) wear in 101 TKA patients. Consecutive, precise measurements of joint space distance in supine and weightbearing positions were used as a surrogate for determining linear polyethylene (PE) wear, while volumetric wear was measured following the introduction of the computer-aided design (CAD) model and assessment of the degree of overlap between the PE component and femoral condyles.30 Similarly, RSA was used in another study to measure the in vivo wear of different bearing types of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. The linear distance between the tibial tray and femoral prosthesis was calculated and subtracted from the estimated bearing thickness.31We have seen RSA used in lengthening osteotomy studies,34 to monitor fracture healing and stability,35,36 in spinal fusion,37 and for soft-tissue biomechanics studies in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction38 and rotator cuff repair.39 The application of RSA in monitoring fracture-healing can provide invaluable information concerning interfragmentary micromotion40 and the exact time of union.41 Amalgamating morphological features and information pertaining to fracture line distribution42 with RSA migration data could be used as a tool to inform decision-making and risk stratification.41Besides static analyses, RSA can be used to obtain dynamic views and assess joint kinematics.43 Dynamic assessment (dRSA) can generate valuable data following TKA in relation to kinematics of various prostheses designs. We have seen dRSA studies comparing the restoration of native knee joint kinematics and joint laxity after ACL reconstruction.44 Furthermore, combination with CT or MRI offers a potentially more precise insight into implant stability and wear. We have also witnessed attempts to identify bony landmarks and monitor implant migration using low-dose CT image segmentation.45 Generating 3D data and employing fusion algorithms may even render the use of RSA beads unnecessary in the future.46 The leap from RSA to CT migration analysis would be a paradigm shift for migration measurement, but requires careful development and evaluation.Another advantage we have seen with RSA is the relatively small sample size to achieve adequate power. Owing to its high accuracy, it has been well documented as part of the stepwise introduction of new implants by Malchau et al,47 advocating a small prospective RCT using RSA as the primary endpoint following preclinical testing. In relation to sample size, the majority of published studies report that a two-arm RCT with 25 to 30 patients per group is adequate to achieve power of 80% to 90%.6,48 However, a methodological consideration with model-based RSA is that precision values are applicable to the specific component design. For this reason, it is recommended that a phantom experiment should be performed prior to a clinical RSA study to establish the lower precision limits of the model for the particular prosthesis.2Advances in arthroplasty have led to the development of new technologies, from 3D printing to patient-specific instrumentation and robotics,49 and RSA can be used to facilitate their safe introduction and implementation. Improving the accessibility of RSA and facilitating its adoption beyond clinical trials is key. Often, one of the potential barriers with the conventional RSA setup is the need to obtain specialized RSA radiographs besides standard anteroposterior and lateral views. To that end, there are reports in hip and knee arthroplasty describing modified approaches using standard clinical radiographs to perform RSA.50,51 The research agenda should now focus on standardizing a validated protocol and modified setup, enabling standard clinical radiological views to be used for RSA migration analysis. This will reduce barriers and facilitate the recruitment and monitoring of implants on a larger scale.Increasing importance is placed on addressing unanswered research questions identified by patients, healthcare professionals, and other key stakeholders.12,52 In the UK and Europe, the key is to harmonize data collection with the rigour and regulatory requirements mandated by the Medical Device Regulation.53 As reflected in the British Orthopaedic Association's statement, costly, long-term studies may not be commercially viable, and could lead to an increase in the cost of implants, both for 'state of the art' and existing devices. From that perspective, RSA should be a key pillar of introducing new implants and providing robust post-marketing surveillance.References1. Kärrholm J, Gill RHS, Valstar ER. The history and future of radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;448:10–21. 10.1097/01.blo.0000224001.95141.fe Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar2. Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Stoel BC, Reiber HC, Nelissen RG. Clinical validation of model-based RSA for a total knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:205–209. 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181571aa5 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar3. Hansen L, De Raedt S, Jørgensen PB, Mygind-Klavsen B, Kaptein B, Stilling M. Marker free model-based radiostereometric analysis for evaluation of hip joint kinematics: A validation study. Bone Joint Res. 2018;7(6):379–387. 10.1302/2046-3758.76.BJR-2017-0268.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar4. Alsousou J, Oragui E, Martin A, et al. Primary stability of a proximally coated and tapered stem. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(4):644–649. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B4.BJJ-2020-1648.R1 Link, Google Scholar5. Sporer S, MacLean L, Burger A, Moric M. Evaluation of a 3D-printed total knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: assessment of highly porous biological fixation of the tibial baseplate and metal-backed patellar component. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(7_Supple_C):40–47. 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1466.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar6. Hasan S, van Hamersveld KT, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Kaptein BL, Nelissen RGHH, Toksvig-Larsen S. Migration of a novel 3D-printed cementless versus a cemented total knee arthroplasty: two-year results of a randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(8):1016–1024. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B8.BJJ-2020-0054.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar7. van Hamersveld KT, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Tsonaka R, Valstar ER, Toksvig-Larsen S. Fixation and clinical outcome of uncemented peri-apatite-coated versus cemented total knee arthroplasty: five-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(11):1467–1476. 10.1302/0301-620X.99B11.BJJ-2016-1347.R3 Link, ISI, Google Scholar8. Mjöberg B. Is early migration enough to explain late clinical loosening of hip prostheses? EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(2):113–117. 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190014 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar9. Karrholm J, Borssen B, Lowenhielm G, Snorrason F. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76-B(6):912–917. 10.1302/0301-620X.76B6.7983118 Link, Google Scholar10. Ryd L, Albrektsson BE, Carlsson L, et al. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77-B(3):377–383. 10.1302/0301-620X.77B3.7744919 Link, Google Scholar11. Laende EK, Richardson CG, Dunbar MJ. Predictive value of short-term migration in determining long-term stable fixation in cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasties. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(7_Supple_C):55–60. 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1493.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar12. Mathews JA, Kalson NS, Tarrant PM, Toms AD, Revision Knee Replacement Priority Setting Partnership steering group. Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2020-0203.R1 Link, Google Scholar13. Haddad FS, Plastow R. Is it time to revisit cementless total knee arthroplasty? Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(8):965–966. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B8.BJJ-2020-0962 Link, Google Scholar14. Laende EK, Astephen Wilson JL, Mills Flemming J, Valstar ER, Richardson CG, Dunbar MJ. Equivalent 2-year stabilization of uncemented tibial component migration despite higher early migration compared with cemented fixation: an RSA study on 360 total knee arthroplasties. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(2):172–178. 10.1080/17453674.2018.1562633 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar15. van Ooij B, Sierevelt IN, van der Vis HM, Hoornenborg D, Haverkamp D. What is the role of cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty? The two-year results of a randomized RSA controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(1):98–104. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B1.BJJ-2020-0788.R1 Link, Google Scholar16. Burger JA, Zuiderbaan HA, Sierevelt IN, et al. Risk of revision for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty according to fixation and bearing type. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(7):1261–1269. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-1224.R3 Link, Google Scholar17. Restrepo S, Smith EB, Hozack WJ. Excellent mid-term follow-up for a new 3D-printed cementless total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):32–37. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-2096.R1 Link, Google Scholar18. Clement ND, Scott CEH, Hamilton DF, MacDonald D, Howie CR. Meaningful values in the Forgotten Joint Score after total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(5):846–854. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-0396.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar19. Hampton M, Mansoor J, Getty J, Sutton PM. Uncemented tantalum metal components versus cemented tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: 11- to 15-year outcomes of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(8):1025–1032. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B8.BJJ-2019-1448.R1 Link, Google Scholar20. Khury F, Fuchs M, Awan Malik H, Leiprecht J, Reichel H, Faschingbauer M. Validation of joint space narrowing on plain radiographs and its relevance to partial knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2021;10(3):173–187. 10.1302/2046-3758.103.BJR-2020-0216.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar21. Kaptein BL, den Hollander P, Thomassen B, Fiocco M, Nelissen RGHH. A randomized controlled trial comparing tibial migration of the ATTUNE cemented cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis with the PFC-sigma design. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(9):1158–1166. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2020-0096.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar22. Lachiewicz PF, Steele JR, Wellman SS. Unexpected high rate of revision of a modern cemented fixed bearing modular posterior-stabilized knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):137–144. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1956.R1 Link, Google Scholar23. Koster LA, Meinardi JE, Kaptein BL, Van der Linden-Van der Zwaag E, Nelissen R. Two-year RSA migration results of symmetrical and asymmetrical tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(5):855–863. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-1575.R2 Link, Google Scholar24. Kazarian GS, Lieberman EG, Hansen EJ, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Clinical impact of component placement in manually instrumented total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(9):1449–1456. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B9.BJJ-2020-1639.R2 Link, Google Scholar25. Martin S, Saurez A, Ismaily S, Ashfaq K, Noble P, Incavo SJ. Maximizing tibial coverage is detrimental to proper rotational alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):121–125. 10.1007/s11999-013-3047-y Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar26. Incavo SJ, Ronchetti PJ, Howe JG, Tranowski JP. Tibial Plateau Coverage in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:81. 10.1097/00003086-199402000-00011 Crossref, Google Scholar27. Fontalis A, Berry DJ, Shimmin A, et al. Prevention of early complications following total hip replacement. SICOT-J. 2021;7:61. 10.1051/sicotj/2021060 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar28. Powell AJ, Crua E, Chong BC, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing mobile-bearing against fixed-bearing PFC Sigma cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasties with ten-year minimum follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(10):1336–1344. 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10.BJJ-2017-1450.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar29. Galea VP, Rojanasopondist P, Laursen M, Muratoglu OK, Malchau H, Bragdon C. Evaluation of vitamin E-diffused highly crosslinked polyethylene wear and porous titanium-coated shell stability: a seven-year randomized control trial using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(7):760–767. 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2019-0268.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar30. Gascoyne T, Parashin S, Teeter M, et al. In vivo wear measurement in a modern total knee arthroplasty with model-based radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(11):1348–1355. 10.1302/0301-620X.101B11.BJJ-2018-1447.R2 Link, Google Scholar31. Mohammad HR, Campi S, Kennedy JA, Judge A, Murray DW, Mellon SJ. Long-term in vivo wear of different bearing types used for the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Bone Joint Res. 2019;8(11):535–543. 10.1302/2046-3758.811.BJR-2019-0163.R1 Link, ISI, Google Scholar32. Thoen PS, Nordsletten L, Pripp AH, Röhrl SM. Results of a randomized controlled trial with five-year radiostereometric analysis results of vitamin E-infused highly crosslinked versus moderately crosslinked polyethylene in reverse total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(12):1646–1653. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B12.BJJ-2020-0721.R1 Link, Google Scholar33. Kjærgaard K, Ding M, Jensen C, et al. Vitamin E-doped total hip arthroplasty liners show similar head penetration to highly cross-linked polyethylene at five years: a multi-arm randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(10):1303–1310. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B10.BJJ-2020-0138.R1 Link, Google Scholar34. Martinkevich P, Rahbek O, Møller-Madsen B, Søballe K, Stilling M. Precise and feasible measurements of lateral calcaneal lengthening osteotomies by radiostereometric analysis in cadaver feet. Bone Joint Res. 2015;4(5):78–83. 10.1302/2046-3758.45.2000292 Link, ISI, Google Scholar35. Finnilä S, Moritz N, Strandberg N, Alm JJ, Aro HT. Radiostereometric analysis of the initial stability of internally fixed femoral neck fractures under differential loading. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(1):239–247. 10.1002/jor.24150 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar36. Madanat R, Moritz N, Larsson S, Aro HT. RSA applications in monitoring of fracture healing in clinical trials. Scand J Surg. 2006;95(2):119–127. 10.1177/145749690609500207 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar37. Parashin S, Gascoyne T, Zarrabian M. A phantom and cadaveric study of radiostereometric analysis in posterior cervical and lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2020;20(8):1333–1343. 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.017 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar38. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Naud S, et al. Accelerated versus nonaccelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation evaluating knee joint laxity using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(12):2536–2548. 10.1177/0363546511422349 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar39. Lorbach O, Kieb M, Raber F, Busch LC, Kohn DM, Pape D. Three-dimensional evaluation of cyclic displacement in single-row and double-row rotator cuff reconstructions under static external rotation. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(1):153–162. 10.1177/0363546512466652 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar40. Duffy P, Trask K, Hennigar A, Barron L, Leighton RK, Dunbar MJ. Assessment of fragment micromotion in distal femur fracture fixation with RSA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;448:105–113. 10.1097/01.blo.0000224008.19798.91 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar41. Madanat R, Moritz N, Larsson S, Aro HT. RSA applications in monitoring of fracture healing in clinical trials. Scand J Surg. 2006;95(2):119–127. 10.1177/145749690609500207 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar42. Yao X, Zhou K, Lv B, et al. 3D mapping and classification of tibial plateau fractures. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(6):258–267. 10.1302/2046-3758.96.BJR-2019-0382.R2 Link, ISI, Google Scholar43. Stentz-Olesen K, Nielsen ET, De Raedt S, et al. Validation of static and dynamic radiostereometric analysis of the knee joint using bone models from CT data. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6(6):376–384. 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2016-0113.R3 Link, ISI, Google Scholar44. Brandsson S, Karlsson J, Swärd L, Kartus J, Eriksson BI, Kärrholm J. Kinematics and laxity of the knee joint after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: pre- and postoperative radiostereometric studies. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(3):361–367. 10.1177/03635465020300031001 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar45. Eriksson T, Maguire GQ, Noz ME, et al. Are low-dose CT scans a satisfactory substitute for stereoradiographs for migration studies? A preclinical test of low-dose CT scanning protocols and their application in a pilot patient. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(12):1643–1652. 10.1177/0284185119844166 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar46. Röhrl SM. "Great balls on fire:" known algorithm with a new instrument? Acta Orthop. 2020;91(6):621–623. 10.1080/17453674.2020.1840029 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar47. Malchau H, Bragdon CR, Muratoglu OK. The stepwise introduction of innovation into orthopedic surgery: the next level of dilemmas. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6):825–831. 10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.007 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar48. Molt M, Toksvig-Larsen S. Similar early migration when comparing CR and PS in Triathlon. Knee. 2014;21(5):949–954. 10.1016/j.knee.2014.05.012 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar49. Fontalis A, Epinette J-A, Thaler M, Zagra L, Khanduja V, Haddad FS. Advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty. SICOT J. 2021;7:26. 10.1051/sicotj/2021025 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar50. Teeter M, Lam K, Howard J, Lanting B, Yuan Y. Radiostereometric analysis using clinical radiographic views: validation measuring total hip replacement wear. J Orthop Res. 2018;34:1521–1528. ISI, Google Scholar51. Yuan X, Broberg JS, Naudie DDR, Holdsworth DW, Teeter MG. Radiostereometric analysis using clinical radiographic views: Validation with model-based radiostereometric analysis for the knee. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018;232(8):759–767. 10.1177/0954411918785662 Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar52. Gwilym SE, Perry DC, Costa ML. Trauma and orthopaedic research is being driven by priorities identified by patients, surgeons, and other key stakeholders. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(8):1328–1330. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B8.BJJ-2020-2578.R1 Link, Google Scholar53. Phillips JRA, Tucker K. Implant brand portfolios, the potential for camouflage of data, and the role of the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(10):1555–1560. 10.1302/0301-620X.103B10.BJJ-2021-0284.R1 Link, Google ScholarAuthor contributionsA. Fontalis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.F. S. Haddad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.Funding statementThe authors disclose receipt of the following financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this scientific paper was supported by the Onassis Foundation - Scholarship ID: F ZR 065-1/2021-2022.TwitterFollow A. Fontalis @AFontalis and @UCLDivofSurgery© 2022 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 11, No. 4 Metrics Downloaded 498 times History Published online 4 April 2022 Information© 2022 Author(s) et al.KeywordsRadiostereometric analysisCementless implantsStem migrationRoentgen stereophotogrammetric analysisorthopaedic researchRSAtotal knee arthroplasty (TKA)randomized controlled trialcomponent migrationmodel-based radiostereometric analysisjoint arthroplastycementless implantsradiographsPDF download
Referência(s)