The direct anterior approach provokes varus stem alignment when using a collarless straight tapered stem

Stem size and stem alignment affects periprosthetic fracture risk and primary stability in cementless total hip arthroplasty

The ideal stem size and stem position is important for the success of total hip arthroplasty, since it can affect early implant loosening and periprosthetic fractures (PPF). This study aimed to investigate how small deviations from the ideal stem size and position influences the PPF risk and primary stability. Six experienced surgeons performed preoperative templating based on which the benchmark size for each femur was determined. Consecutive implantations were performed in six cadaveric femur pairs-one side was implanted with an undersized stem followed by the benchmark size and the contralateral side with a benchmark size followed by an oversized stem (Corail, Depuy Synthes). Moreover, three different alignments (six varus, six neutral, six valgus-undersized) were compared using 18 femurs. Cortical strains during broaching and implantation were measured, and laser scans were used to determine final stem position. All specimens underwent dynamic loading. Primary stability was estimated from stem subsidence and pull-out forces. Templated stem size varied between surgeons (±1 size; p = 0.005). Undersizing increased stem subsidence by 320% (p < 0.001). Oversized stems exhibited 52% higher pull-out forces (p = 0.001) and 240% higher cortical strains (p = 0.056). Cortex strains increased with varus alignment (R2 = 0.356, p = 0.011) while primary stability decreased with valgus stem alignment (p = 0.043). Surgeons should be aware that small deviations from the ideal stem size and malalignments of the stem can significantly alter the mechanical situation and affect the success of their surgery.

Accuracy of Preoperative 3D vs 2D Digital Templating for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Direct Anterior Approach

Background

An important aspect of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty is templating. Although two-dimensional (2D) templating remains the gold standard, computerized tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) templating is a novel preoperative planning technique. This study aims to compare the accuracy of a 2D and 3D plan using an anterior approach for the placement of the same uncemented prosthesis.

Methods

Two consecutive cohorts of 100 patients each were retrospectively analyzed. We analyzed the accuracy of the size of the implant (stem, cup, head), the length of head, and offset. As a secondary criterion, we analyzed the rates of stems with more than 3° of varus, fracture, and/or subsidence at 3 months postoperatively.

Results

Within the exact size, the accuracy of the stem and cup size with the 2D plan was 69% and 56%, respectively. With the 3D plan accuracy being 88% (P = .0046) and 96% (P < .0001), respectively. Regarding size and length of the implant head, accuracy was 86% and 82% with the 2D plan and 100% (P < .0001) and 94% (P = .016), respectively, with the 3D plan. The offset of the implants increased beyond 3 mm in 23% of patients in the 2D group and in 5% of patients in the 3D group (P = .0003). The rate of varus stems was 10% in the 2D group and 2% in the 3D group (P = .03). Two fractures and one case of subsidence occurred in the 2D group. None were identified in the 3D cohort.

Conclusions

A CT-based 3D plan is more accurate for implant size selection, allows better prosthetic offset, and reduces the rate of varus stems.

Is the Direct Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty Effective in Obese Patients? Early Clinical and Radiographic Results from a Retrospective Comparative Study

Background and objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in obese patients (BMI > 30) is considered technically demanding, and it is associated with higher rates of general and specific complications including infections, component malpositioning, dislocation, and periprosthetic fractures. Classically, the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) has been considered less suitable for performing THA surgery in the obese patient, but recent evidence produced by high-volume DAA THA surgeons suggests that DAA is suitable and effective in obese patients. At the authors' institution, DAA is currently the preferred approach for primary and revision THA surgery, accounting for over 90% of hip surgeries without specific patient selection. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to evaluate any difference in early clinical outcomes, perioperative complications, and implant positioning after primary THAs performed via DAA in patients who were divided according to BMI. Material and methods: This study is a retrospective review of 293 THA implants in 277 patients that were performed via DAA from 1 January 2016 to 20 May 2020. Patients were further divided according to BMI: 96 patients were normal weight (NW), 115 were overweight (OW), and 82 were obese (OB). All the procedures were performed by three expert surgeons. The mean follow-up was 6 months. Patients' data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, surgical time, days in rehab unit, pain at the second post-operative day recorded by using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and number of blood transfusions were recorded from clinical charts and compared. Radiological evaluation of cup inclination and stem alignment was conducted on post-operative radiographs; intra- and post-operative complications at latest follow-up were recorded. Results: The average age at surgery of OB patients was significantly lower compared to NW and OW patients. The ASA score was significantly higher in OB patients compared to NW patients. Surgical time was slightly but significantly higher in OB patients (85 ± 21 min) compared to NW (79 ± 20 min, p = 0.05) and OW patients (79 ± 20 min, p = 0.029). Rehab unit discharge occurred significantly later for OB patients, averaging 8 ± 2 days compared to NW patients (7 ± 2 days, p = 0.012) and OW patients (7 ± 2 days; p = 0.032). No differences in the rate of early infections, number of blood transfusions, NRS pain at the second post-operative day, and day of post-operative stair climbing were found among the three groups. Acetabular cup inclination and stem alignment were similar among the three groups. The perioperative complication rate was 2.3%; that is, perioperative complication occurred in 7 out of 293 patients, with a significantly higher incidence of surgical revisions required in obese patients compared to the others. In fact, OB patients showed a higher revision rate (4.87%) compared to other groups, with 1.04% for NW and 0% for OW (p = 0.028, Chi-square test). Causes for revision in obese patients were aseptic loosening (2), dislocation (1), and clinically significant post-operative leg length discrepancy (1), with a revision rate of 4/82 (4.87%) during follow-up. Conclusions: THA performed via DAA in obese patients could be a solid choice of treatment, given the relatively low rate of complications and the satisfying clinical outcomes. However, surgical expertise on DAA and adequate instrumentation for this approach are required to optimise the outcomes.

Varus stem positioning does not affect long-term functional outcome in cementless anatomical total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Varus positioning is the most common femoral malposition in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared the long-term outcomes of an anatomical cementless femoral stem positioned in varus versus neutral alignment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients receiving a cementless anatomical femoral stem in THA for osteoarthritis between 1998 and 2008. Exclusion criteria were complex cases, incomplete data or follow-up < 1 year. Primary outcome was survival rate with complications and secondary outcomes were clinical scores, thigh pain, radiological score, cortical hypertrophy and filling rate.

RESULTS

Of the 283 included patients, 127 stems were classified as varus and 156 neutral. Mean follow-up was 10 years. Femoral stem size was smaller in the varus group (4.1 vs. 4.4, p = 0.047). A stem-filling rate < 80% was more frequent in the varus group (p < 0.001). The long-term survival rate without any revision procedure was 94.8% ± 2.3% (95%CI 88.4-98.7) in the varus group and 94.1% ± 2.0% (95%CI 91.3-99.1) in the neutral group (p = 0.55). There was no difference in clinical scores, thigh pain or complication occurrence between groups. The Engh-Massin score was lower in the varus group (p < 0.01) and cortical hypertrophy was higher (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A varus alignment of a cementless anatomic femoral stem does not affect survivorship, clinical outcomes or complication rate on an average follow-up of 10 years, despite increasing stress-shielding rates.

SuperPath® vs. direct anterior approach : A retrospective comparison between two minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive approaches are subject to controversy in orthopedic surgery. The aim of the current study was to compare the radiographic parameters between two minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2018 and February 2019, the radiographic parameters of 80 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty via minimally invasive approaches (DAA: n = 40; SuperPath® SP: n = 40) have been measured. The radiographic analysis was performed with digital software tool mediCad® (HECTEC™ GmbH, Landshut, Germany).

RESULTS

Patients treated with DAA showed significantly higher inclination (SP: 39.7° ± 7.3° vs. DAA: 44.7° ± 5.3°) and significantly lower cup anteversion values (SP: 31.2° ± 7.9° vs. DAA: 27. 5° ± 5.3°, p < 0.001) than patients undergoing THA via SP postoperatively. The horizontal femoral offset was neither preoperatively nor postoperatively higher in DAA than in SP cohort (preoperative: p = 0.71, postoperative: p = 0.25) (preoperative: SP:37.2 mm ± 7.3 vs. DAA 38.2 mm ± 7.5; postoperative: SP: 38.0 mm ± 7.2 vs. DAA: 40.5 mm ± 7.0). At both times, the acetabular offset was significantly higher in DAA cohort than in SP cohort (preoperative: SP: 32.9 mm ± 5.9 vs. DAA: 36.8 mm ± 4.9; postoperative: SP: 28.9 mm ± 4.2 vs. DAA: 33.4 mm ± 3.8) (preoperative: 0.001; postoperative: p < 0.001). The vertical height was preoperatively and postoperatively not significantly higher in SP cohort than in DAA cohort (preoperative: SP: 16.1 mm ± 4.1 vs. DAA: 15.5 mm ± 4.9; postoperative: SP: 16.6 mm ± 4.6 vs. DAA: 16.1 mm ± 4.6) (preoperative: p = 0.77; postoperative: p = 0.58). The preoperatively existing leg length discrepancy of the affected leg could be compensated via surgery without showing significant differences between the two cohorts (preoperative: SP: -3.2 mm ± 5.4 vs. DAA: 1.9 mm ± 4.9; postoperative: SP: 1.5 mm ± 5.4 vs. DAA: 4.8 mm ± 5.6) (preoperative: p = 0.34; postoperative: p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates suitable cup positioning and stem alignment in the coronal plane using minimal-invasive approaches DAA and Superpath®.

Selecting a Press-fit Stem for Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Rationale and Evolution of the Modern Femoral Prosthesis

Noncemented press-fit femoral stems predominate in total hip arthroplasty for all age groups with generally excellent long-term survivorship. The 2021 American Joint Replacement Registry reports that 96% of all elective primary total hip arthroplasties used noncemented femoral implant fixation. 1 Today, there are many styles of press-fit stems, each with supposed benefits, based on a range of design philosophies. Design aspects to consider when selecting a stem are numerous, including stem geometry, stem length, collared or collarless, material properties, and surface structure. Although most stem designs demonstrate excellent results, the differences in stem designs are intimately linked to additional factors such as ease of use/implantation, percentage of surface osseointegration, overall bone removal versus bone stock preservation, subsequent femoral stress shielding, and consideration of complexity of later revision. A surgeon with a broad understanding and appreciation of femoral stem designs should be prepared to select between the multitude of options to best serve individual patients.

Anterior hip replacement: lower dislocation rates despite less restrictions?

INTRODUCTION

Dislocation in Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common postoperative complication and reason for revision surgery. The direct anterior approach has become more popular over the last decade. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative dislocation rates of the direct anterior and the posterior approach at a one-year follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

797 consecutive hips operated through a posterior approach [698 patients (307 male, 391 female)] between 2009 and 2012, were compared to 690 selected THA [610 patients (423 female, 187 male)] operated since 2012. Anterior hip replacement surgery was primarily indicated for patients demanding increased flexibility after surgery (Yoga) or were considered a higher risk for dislocation.

RESULTS

During a one-year follow-up there were eight dislocations out of 797 THA (1%) in the posterior group and none in the 690 THA (0%) in the anterior group (p-value of 0.008). Average time to dislocation was 7.5 weeks in the posterior group. Five of eight patients with dislocations needed revision surgery due to persistent instability.

CONCLUSION

Even in a higher-risk patient population, the direct anterior approach showed a lower dislocation rate compared to the posterior approach in the first year after surgery.

High varus stem alignment in short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a risk for reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offset, leg length discrepancy and stem undersizing?

PURPOSE

Short stems are increasingly used in in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of advantages in bone and soft tissue preservation and reconstruction of hip geometry. Short stems can be inserted in a more varus position compared to conventional straight stems. This poses the risk of final varus misplacement of the femoral component, which is not intended in all femoral short stems.

METHODS

We wanted to evaluate the effect of a high varus stem positioning in MIS THA on hip offset, leg length and femoral canal fill index. A series of 1052 consecutive THAs with a singular cementless femoral short stem and press-fit cup was retrospectively screened for inclusion. One hundred six patients with unilateral THA and a contralateral healthy hip met the inclusion criteria. Measurements were carried out on preoperative and 3 months anterior-posterior postoperative radiographs. Patients were divided into Group A (varus stem alignment ≤ 3°) and Group B (varus stem alignment > 3°).

RESULTS

Hip offset (HO) increased significantly in Group B by 4 mm (p = 0.013). No influence on leg length difference was detected in both groups. Preoperative CCD angle was significantly lower in Group B (p < 0.001). Canal Fill Indices (CFI) were significantly lower in Group B (CFI I: p < 0.001; CFI II p = 0.003; CF III p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

High varus stem alignment > 3° leads to a statistically significant but minor increase in HO and poses the risk of stem undersizing. A preoperatively low genuine CCD angle pose a risk for varus stem positioning.

A single-surgeon experience in reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offset and implant positioning in direct anterior approach and anterolateral MIS approach with a curved short stem

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery using short stems in total hip arthroplasty gained more popularity. The differences in change of hip offset and implant positioning in minimally invasive approaches are not fully known. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the difference in reconstruction of hip offset and implant positioning in direct anterior approach (DAA) and minimally invasive anterolateral approach (AL MIS).

METHODS

A single surgeon series of 117 hips (117 patients; mean age 65.54 years ± 11.47; index surgery 2014-2018) were included and allocated into two groups: group A (DAA) with 70 hips and Group B (AL MIS) with 47 patients operated. In both groups the same type of cementless curved short hip stem and press fit cup was used.

RESULTS

Both groups showed an equal statistically significant increase of femoral (p < 0.001) and decrease of acetabular offset (p < 0.001). Between both groups no statistically significant difference in offset reconstruction, leg length difference or implant positioning could be found. Leg length increased in both groups significantly and leg length discrepancy showed no difference (group A: - 0.06 mm; group B: 1.11 mm; p < 0.001). A comparable number of cups were positioned outside the target zone regarding cup anteversion.

CONCLUSION

The usage of a curved short stem shows an equal reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offset, leg length and implant positioning in both MIS approaches. The results of this study show comparable results to the existing literature regarding change of offset and restoration of leg length. Malposition of the acetabular component regarding anteversion poses a risk.

Restoring hip biomechanics during the learning curve of a novice surgeon: Direct anterior approach vs posterior approach

Introduction

It remains controversial whether the direct anterior approach (DAA) or the posterior approach (PA) allows better restoration of hip biomechanics after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Besides, it is not certain which approach is best for a novice surgeon to avoid implant malposition, neither during the learning curve nor once the curve plateau has been reached.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of THAs operated on between 2014 and 2019 by a single novice surgeon (DAA, n = 187; PA, n = 184). The surgeon used both approaches, and thus went through parallel learning curves.

Results

While the DAA presented a greater number of acetabular cup implantations within Lewinnek's "safe zone" for inclination (84.5% vs. 79.3%; p = 0.003), the PA returned superior results for anteversion (77.7% vs. 68.4%; p = 0.000). The PA showed a tendency to verticalize acetabular cups, while the DAA tended to antevert them. The DAA resulted in fewer patients with leg length discrepancy (3.2% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.041). No differences were found in stem coronal alignment or femoral offset.

Conclusion

Both approaches are safe and reliable for restoring hip biomechanics through THA surgery during the learning curve of a novice hip surgeon. Similar radiological outcomes are also seen once the surgeon has reached the learning curve plateau.

Aseptic Loosening of Smaller Corail Stems in Heavy, Active Males: A Report of Three Cases

Recent concerns have been raised regarding a higher failure rate with smaller size Corail stems. This case series examines early aseptic loosening with smaller stems in three large male patients with Dorr A bone. Each stem was fluoroscopically aligned and sized until stable with axial and rotational stress. In each case, failure occurred within six months due to symptomatic metaphyseal debonding. Careful analysis suggests a correlation of failure to small size stems that are comparatively 1) undersized relative to the metaphysis, 2) undersized relative to patient body mass index, and 3) undersized relative to the amount of offset created.

Evaluation of intra- and interobserver reliability in the assessment of the 'critical trochanter angle'

Background

The recently described ‘critical trochanter angle’ (CTA) is a novel parameter in the preoperative risk assessment of stem malalignment in total hip arthroplasty. As its reproducibility needs to be evaluated, the given study aims to investigate intra- and interobserver reliability. It is hypothesized that both analyses justify the clinical use of the CTA.

Methods

A total of 100 pelvic radiographs obtained prior to total hip arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed by four observers with different levels of clinical experience. The CTA was measured twice by each observer at different occasions in the previously described technique. Intra- and interobserver reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals (CI) and the Bland–Altman approach.

Results

The mean CTA in both measuring sequences was 20.58° and 20.78°. The observers’ means ranged from 17.76° to 25.23°. Intraobserver reliability showed a mean difference of less than 0.5° for all four observers (95% limit of agreement: − 7.70–6.70). Intraobserver ICCs ranged from 0.92 to 0.99 (CI 0.88–0.99). For interobserver variation analysis, ICCs of 0.83 (CI 0.67–0.90) and 0.85 (CI 0.68–0.92) were calculated.

Conclusion

Analyses concerning intra- and interobserver reliability in the assessment of the CTA showed ‘very good’ and ‘good’ results, respectively. In view of these findings, the use of the CTA as an additional preoperative parameter to assess the risk of intraoperative stem malalignment seems to be justified.