Comparison of Pelvic Landmarks for Leg Length Discrepancy Measurement With Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

David M Hiltzik; Mitchell D Cin; Britanny A Hamama; Caleb J Pawl; Henry R Haley; Chin-I Cheng; Tarek A Taha

doi:10.1016/j.artd.2023.101252

Comparison of Pelvic Landmarks for Leg Length Discrepancy Measurement With Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty

Arthroplast Today. 2023 Nov 7:24:101252. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101252. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Authors

David M Hiltzik¹, Mitchell D Cin¹, Britanny A Hamama¹, Caleb J Pawl¹, Henry R Haley¹, Chin-I Cheng², Tarek A Taha³

Affiliations

¹ Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, MI, USA.
² Central Michigan University Statistical Consulting Center, Mt Pleasant, MI, USA.
³ Ascension Michigan St. Mary's Hospital, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Saginaw, MI, USA.

Abstract

Background: Leg length discrepancy (LLD) is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) leading to significant morbidity and dissatisfaction for patients. A popular system for robotic arm-assisted THA utilizes preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans for surgical planning. Accurate measurement of leg length is crucial for restoring appropriate patient anatomy during the procedure. This study investigates the interobserver and interlandmark reliability of 3 different pelvic landmarks for measuring preoperative LLD.

Methods: We compiled preoperative pelvic CT scans from 99 robotic arm-assisted THAs for osteoarthritis. Radiologic leg length measurement was performed using the robotic arm-assisted THA application by 2 orthopaedic residents using reference lines bisecting the following pelvic landmarks: the anterior superior iliac spines, acetabular teardrops, and most inferior aspect of the ischial rami.

Results: On multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference found (P value = .924) for leg length measurement based on the 3 different pelvic anatomical landmarks. Leg length measurements showed interobserver reliability with significant Pearson correlation coefficients (r = 1.0, 0.94, 0.96, respectively) and nonsignificant differences in LLD means between subjects on paired sample (P value = .158, .085, 0.125, respectively) as well as between landmarks on pairwise comparison.

Conclusions: The 3 pelvic landmarks used in this study can be used interchangeably with the lesser trochanter as the femoral reference point to evaluate preoperative LLD on pelvic CT in patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted THA. This study is the first of its kind to evaluate the interobserver and interlandmark reliability of anatomical landmarks on pelvic CT scans and suggests interchangeability of 3 pelvic landmarks for comparing leg length differences.

Keywords: Leg length discrepancy; Mako robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty; Pelvic landmark; Total hip arthroplasty.