Which Safe Zone Is Safe in Total Hip Arthroplasty? The Effect of Bony Impingement

Offset Considerations in Total Hip Arthroplasty

To perform total hip arthroplasty (THA) successfully, a surgeon must be able to place the implants in a position that will restore and duplicate the patient's baseline anatomy and soft-tissue tension. One of the critical factors is the restoration of femoral offset. It is the goal of this review to precisely define measurement of offset in THA, describe its role in hip joint biomechanics, outline alterations that can be performed intraoperatively, and explain how it can create potential pathologic states. If there is a lack of offset restoration, it can result in a host of complications, including bony impingement with pain, edge loading or prosthetic joint instability, and alterations in the muscle length-tension relationship leading to reduced motor performance. Excessive femoral offset can increase hip abductor muscle and iliotibial band tension resulting in greater trochanteric pain regardless of the surgical approach. The purpose of this review was to analyze intraoperative surgical factors, choice of prosthetic implant type and position that are required to maximize stability, and dynamic motor performance after THA.

In silico analysis of the patient-specific acetabular cup anteversion safe zone

INTRODUCTION

Various computer-assisted surgical systems claim to improve the accuracy of cup placement in total hip arthroplasties after assessing spinopelvic mobility to prevent prosthetic impingement. However, no study has yet analyzed the extent of the patient-specific cup anteversion safe zones.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that most patients have a safe zone >10 °, except those with abnormal spinopelvic mobility, who have a much narrower safe zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We simulated the risks of prosthetic impingement using the planned cup anteversion. The consecutive cohort included 341 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty. Our primary endpoint was the patient-specific impingement-free zone for cup anteversion, which was then divided into four subgroups: 0 °, 1 ° to 5 °, 6 ° to 10 °, and >10 °. This data was then secondarily analyzed for abnormal spinopelvic mobility (the difference in the spinopelvic tilt [ΔSPT] from a standing to a flexed seated position >20 °).

RESULTS

The mean anteversion safe zone was 22.8 ° with 82.4% (281/341) of patients with a zone strictly >10 °. The mean safe zone was 8.9 ° (+/- 9 °) in patients with an ΔSPT ≥20 ° (18.2%), with 37.1% of these patients having a zone of 0 °, 16.13% a zone between 1 ° and 5 °, 8.06% a zone between 6 ° and 10 ° and 38.71% a zone >10 °. The mean safe zone was 25.9 ° (+/- 9 °) in patients with an ΔSPT <20 ° (81.8%), and the proportion of cases in each zone was 2.51%, 1.08%, 4.3%, and 92.11%, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The safe zone for anteversion appears to be fairly wide in most patients. However, identifying patients at risk of abnormal spinopelvic mobility seems necessary to identify the two-thirds of patients with a narrow safe zone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

How Relevant Is the Parallax Effect on Low Centered Pelvic Radiographs in Total Hip Arthroplasty

The correct cup position in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is usually assessed on anteroposterior low centered pelvic radiographs, harboring the risk of misinterpretation due to projection of a three-dimensional geometry on a two-dimensional plane. In the current study, we evaluate the effect of this parallax effect on the cup inclination and anteversion in THA. In the course of a prospective clinical trial, 116 standardized low centered pelvic radiographs, as routinely obtained after THA, were evaluated regarding the impact of central beam deviation on the cup inclination and anteversion angles. Measurements of the horizontal and vertical beam offset with two different methods of parallax correction were compared with each other. Furthermore, the effect of parallax correction on the accuracy ofmeasuring the cup position was investigated. The mean difference between the two parallax correction methods was 0.2° ± 0.1° (from 0° to 0.4°) for the cup inclination and 0.1° ± 0.1° (from -0.1° to 0.2°) for the anteversion. For a typically intended cup position of a 45° inclination and 15° anteversion, the parallax effect led to a mean error of -1.5° ± 0.3° for the inclination and 0.6° ± 1.0° for the anteversion. Central beam deviation resulted in a projected higher cup inclination up to 3.7°, and this effect was more prominent in cups with higher anteversion. In contrast, the projected inclination decreased due to the parallax effect up to 3.2°, especially in cups with high inclination. The parallax effect on routinely obtained low centered pelvic radiographs is low and not clinically relevant due to the compensating effect of simultaneous medial and caudal central beam deviation.

Does Individualization of Cup Position Affect Prosthetic or Bone Impingement Following THA?

INTRODUCTION

Spinopelvic (SP) mobility patterns during postural changes affect three-dimensional acetabular component position, the incidence of prosthetic impingement, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability. Surgeons have commonly placed the acetabular component in a similar "safe zone" for most patients. Our purpose was to determine the incidence of bone and prosthetic impingement with various cup orientations and determine if a preoperative SP analysis with individualized cup orientation lessens impingement.

METHODS

A preoperative SP evaluation of 78 THA subjects was performed. Data was analyzed using a software program to determine the prevalence of prosthetic and bone impingement with a patient individualized cup orientation versus six commonly selected cup orientations. Impingement was correlated with known SP risk factors for dislocation.

RESULTS

Prosthetic impingement was least with the individualized choice of cup position (9%) vs. preselected cup positions (18 to 61%). The presence of bone impingement (33%) was similar in all groups and not affected by cup position. Factors associated with impingement in flexion were age, lumbar flexion, pelvic tilt (stand to flexed seated), and functional femoral stem anteversion. Risk factors in extension included standing pelvic tilt, standing SP tilt, lumbar flexion, pelvic rotation (supine to stand and stand to flexed seated), and functional femoral stem anteversion.

CONCLUSION

Prosthetic impingement is reduced with individualized cup positioning based on SP mobility patterns. Bone impingement occurred in one-third of patients and is a noteworthy consideration in preoperative THA planning. Known SP risk factors for THA instability correlated with the It dependspresence of prosthetic impingement in both flexion and extension.

Achieving Precise Cup Positioning in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review

Malpositioned implants in total hip arthroplasty are associated with impingement, increased wear, and dislocations, thus precise cup positioning is crucial. However, significant deviations between targeted and actually achieved cup positions have been found even in patients operated by experienced surgeons. When aiming for higher accuracy, various methods based on freehand positioning lead by anatomic landmarks, C-arm fluoroscopy, imageless navigation, or robotic-assisted-surgery have been described. There is a constant development of new products aiming to simplify and improve intraoperative guidance. Both the literature and expert opinions on this topic are often quite controversial. This article aims to give an overview of the different methods and systems with their specific advantages and potential pitfalls while also taking a look into the future of cup positioning in anterior hip replacements.

Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management-Part 1: Templating: Past, Present and Future

Hip arthroplasty is a frequently used procedure with high success rates. Its main indications are primary or secondary advanced osteoarthritis, due to acute fracture, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and hip dysplasia. The goals of HA are to reduce pain and restore normal hip biomechanics, allowing a return to the patient’s normal activities. To reach those goals, the size of implants must suit, and their positioning must meet, quality criteria, which can be determined by preoperative imaging. Moreover, mechanical complications can be influenced by implant size and position, and could be avoided by precise preoperative templating. Templating used to rely on standard radiographs, but recently the use of EOS^® imaging and CT has been growing, given the 3D approach provided by these methods. However, there is no consensus on the optimal imaging work-up, which may have an impact on the outcomes of the procedure. This article reviews the current principles of templating, the various imaging techniques used for it, as well as their advantages and drawbacks, and their expected results.

Orthopedic Surgeons' Accuracy When Orienting an Acetabular Cup. A Comparison with Untrained Individuals

Background and Objectives: Previous studies demonstrated a huge variability among surgeons when it comes to reproducing the position of an acetabular cup in total hip arthroplasty. Our main objective is to determine if orthopedic surgeons can replicate a given orientation on a pelvic model better than untrained individuals. Our secondary objective is to determine if experience has any influence on their ability for this task. Materials and Methods: A group of specialist orthopedic hip surgeons and a group of volunteers with no medical training were asked to reproduce three given (randomly generated) acetabular cup orientations (inclination and anteversion) on a pelvic model. Error was measured by means of a hip navigation system and comparisons between groups were made using the appropriate statistical methods. Results: The study included 107 individuals, 36 orthopedic surgeons and 71 untrained volunteers. The mean error among surgeons was slightly greater as regards both inclination (7.84 ± 5.53 vs. 6.70 ± 4.03) and anteversion (5.85 ± 4.52 vs. 5.48 ± 3.44), although statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.226 and p = 0.639, respectively). Similarly, although surgeons with more than 100 procedures a year obtained better results than those with less surgical experience (8.01 vs. 7.67 degrees of error in inclination and 5.83 vs. 5.87 in anteversion), this difference was not statistically significant, either (p = 0.852 and p = 0.981). Conclusions: No differences were found in the average error made by orthopedic surgeons and untrained individuals. Furthermore, the surgeons' cup orientation accuracy was not seen to improve significantly with experience.