Well-Placed Acetabular Component Oriented Outside the Safe Zone During Weight-Bearing Daily Activities

Is There Safety Outside the "Safe Zone" in Total Hip Replacement? A Retrospective Observational Study

Background and Objectives: The safe zone in total hip replacement was introduced many years ago. Its aim was to provide guidelines for orthopedic surgeons in order to avoid complications such as instability. With the growing interest in spinopelvic alignment, some new insights suggest that the safe zone is an obsolete concept. This study aims to show that, even outside the safe zone, the effect of total hip replacement can be satisfactory. This could be used as preliminary study for an analysis of a larger group. Materials and Methods: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with end-stage osteoarthritis treated by total hip replacement were enrolled into the study and divided into two groups: inside the safe zone and outside the safe zone. A physical examination during postoperative visits was performed; the range of movement was measured using a goniometer; and the HHS and VAS were taken to measure functional outcomes and pain, respectively. An analysis of the radiological outcomes was performed. Results: There was no significant difference in regard to changes in total offset, pain, HHS and other complications. There were no signs of instability among patients during the follow-up. Conclusions: The results of this study show that the "safe zone" is a more complicated term that was previously thought. A proper soft tissue balance and spinopelvic alignment could be factors that change the "safe zone" for each patient and make it more individual.

Dynamic Acetabular Cup Orientation during Gait: A Study of Fast- and Slow-Walking Total Hip Replacement Patients

The dynamic orientation of total hip replacement acetabular cups during walking may vary substantially from their assumed position at surgical implantation and may vary between individuals. The scale of this effect is of interest for both pre-clinical device testing and for pre-operative surgical planning. This work aimed to evaluate (1) patient variation in dynamic cup orientation; (2) whether walking speed was a candidate proxy measure for the dynamic cup orientation; and (3) the relationships between dynamic cup orientation angles and planar pelvic angles. Pelvic movement data for patients with fast (20 patients) and slow (19 patients) self-selected walking speeds were used to calculate acetabular cup inclination and version angles through gait. For aim 1, the range and extremes of acetabular cup orientation angles were analysed for all patients. A large patient-to-patient variation was found in the ranges of both inclination angle (1° to 11°) and version angle (4° to 18°). The version angle was typically retroverted in comparison to the implantation position (greatest deviation 27°). This orientation is substantially different to the static, 0° version, simplifying assumptions in pre-clinical 'edge loading' testing. For aim 2, the cup orientation angles were compared between the fast- and slow-walking groups using statistical parametric mapping. The only significant differences observed were for cup version angle, during ~12% of the gait cycle before toe-off (p < 0.05). Therefore, self-selected walking speed, in isolation, is not a sufficient proxy measure for dynamic acetabular orientation. For aim 3, correlations were recorded between the acetabular cup orientation angles and the planar pelvic angles. The cup inclination angle during gait was strongly correlated (Spearman's coefficient -1) with pelvic obliquity alone, indicating that simple planar assessment could be used to anticipate inclination angle range. The cup version angle was correlated with both pelvic rotation and tilt (Spearman's coefficient 0.8-1), indicating that cup version cannot be predicted directly from any single pelvic movement. This complexity, along with the interaction between inclination angle and range of version angle, supports the use of computational tools to aid clinical understanding.

A Comparison of Radiographic Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty between the Direct Lateral Approach and Posterior Lateral Approach with EOS 2D/3D X-Ray Imaging System

OBJECTIVE

The classical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are the direct lateral approach (DLA) and posterior lateral approach (PLA). There are few studies comparing implant orientation with these two approaches, and the impact of surgical approaches on implant orientation remains controversial. With the rise of the EOS imaging system, we aimed to use it to identify the differences between and factors associated with implant orientation after THA using DLA and PLA.

METHODS

In our department from January 2019 to December 2021, 321 primary unilateral THAs that used PLA and DLA were enrolled. A total of 201 patients who received PLA and 120 patients who received DLA were included in this study. Two blinded observers measured each case using EOS imaging data. Postoperative imaging metrics and other relevant influencing factors of the two surgical approaches were compared. Postoperative imaging metrics, including the anteversion and inclination of the cup, anteversion of the stem, and combined anteversion were measured based on EOS. Other relevant influencing factors included age, approach, gender, laterality, BMI, anterior pelvic plane inclination, femoral head diameter, femoral offset, lateral pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvis axial rotation, sacral slope, sagittal pelvic tilt, and surgery time. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the predictors of acceptability for each imaging data point.

RESULTS

No dislocation was found in the 321 patients who underwent primary THA during this period. The mean anteversion and combined anteversion of the cups using the DLA were 21.33° ± 17.31° (-51.7°-60.8°) and 33.71° ± 20.85° (-38.8°-77.6°) and PLA were 25.34° ± 12.76° (-5.5°-57.0°) and 42.37° ± 18.85° (-8.7°-84.7°), respectively. The DLA group had smaller anteversion (p = 0.038) and combined anteversion (p < 0.001). We found that surgical approach (p < 0.05), anterior pelvic plane inclination (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), and femoral head diameter (p < 0.001) were important factors affecting acetabular cup anteversion (R2  = 0.375) and combined anteversion (R2  = 0.525).

CONCLUSIONS

In total hip arthroplasty, different prosthesis installation directions should be made according to different surgical approaches. Compared with the direct lateral approach, the acetabular anteversion can be intentionally enlarged when using the posterolateral approach. Surgical approach, anterior pelvic plane inclination (APPI), gender, and femoral head diameter were significant predictors of prosthesis orientation. The anterior pelvic plane inclination may be a useful standard for assessing the position of the prosthesis using EOS.