Comparative analysis of hip replacement: traditional implants versus minimally invasive implants

Abstract

Continuous improvement of technologies has led to the design of new minimally invasive hip replacement, which not only pose a cosmetic improvement, but a significant decrease in risk, in contrast to conventional techniques that involve a long and painful postoperatively. It is therefore necessary to study these new prostheses. Implants have been simulated in two primary prostheses from the same manufacturer generated by CAD software: an implanted through a conventional technique (Aesculap Excia) and another that is implanted through a minimally invasive technique (Aesculap Metha). Then we compared the results between the two with finite element software. In the case of Metha prosthesis is simulated the correct implantation of the prosthetic stem and the cases of poorly done implantations in varus and valgus, which occurs more frequently. It is also examined the ability of the surgeon to compensate for the mistakes made during the implantation of the stem through the use of different conical adapters available to the system. In the case of Excia prosthesis is simulated a bad implantation in varus, in order to study their sensitivity to a possible bad implantation, comparing it in turn with the sensitivity between bad implantations of a minimally invasive prosthesis. In view of the results, we recommend the use of minimally invasive prostheses versus conventional prostheses. It is also concluded that the use of conical adapters of the minimally invasive prosthesis for the correction of bad implantation in varus or valgus helps, but not solve the problem arising from this poorly done implantation, recommending the use of robotic surgical systems.