Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 15;17:58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.06.016

Table 4.

Prelearning and postlearning curve handheld navigation outcomes compared to conventional fluoroscopic THA.

Variable Conventional fluoroscopy (n = 60) Prelearning curve (n = 30) P valuea Postlearning curve (n = 64) P valuea
Acetabular cup version
 Mean difference in degrees 5.8 (4.6) 5.8 (4.1) 1.000 2.0 (1.4) <.001b
 Outlier ≥5° 29 (48%) 17 (57%) .454 4 (6%) <.001b
 Outlier ≥10° 12 (20%) 5 (17%) .699 0 (0%) <.001b
Acetabular cup inclination
 Mean difference in degrees 5.4 (4.1) 2.9 (1.9) .011 1.3 (1.0) <.001b
 Outlier ≥5° 25 (42%) 7 (23%) .087 0 (0%) <.001b
 Outlier ≥10° 9 (15%) 0 (0%) .027 0 (0%) .001b
Leg length discrepancy
 Mean difference in mm 3.4 (3.0) 2.3 (1.8) .087 1.0 (1.1) <.001b
 Outlier ≥5 mm 18 (30%) 3 (10%) .034 1 (2%) <.001b
 Outlier ≥10 mm 3 (5%) 0 (0%) .326 0 (0%) .11
Operative time (min) 72 (24) 92 (15) <.001 66 (10) .113
Fluoroscopic dose (mGy) 2.08 (2.10) 1.64 (0.94) .280 0.56 (0.48) <.001b
Fluoroscopic time (s) 19.1 (8.4) 20.4 (7.5) .477 5.3 (3.3) <.001b

Categorical data presented as n (%); continuous data presented as mean (standard deviation).

a

Compared to conventional fluoroscopy.

b

Statistically significant P value.