Acetabular cup position: the imperative of getting it right

Fluoroscopy-based robotic assistance for total hip arthroplasty improves acetabular cup placement accuracy for obese patients compared to the manual, fluoroscopic- assisted technique

BACKGROUND

Patient obesity is a risk factor for poor acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of using a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic THA system on acetabular cup placement in obese versus non-obese patients.

METHODS

A review of 105 consecutive manual unassisted (mTHA) (47 Obese/58 Non-obese) and 102 robotic-assisted (RA-THA) (50 Obese/52 Non-obese) primary, direct anterior approach THA procedures was conducted. All cases were performed by a single surgeon, for a pre-operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. Obesity was defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) ⩾ 30 kg/m2. Outcomes included acetabular cup inclination and anteversion, and the proportion of cups within the Lewinnek safe-zone.

RESULTS

Obese patients in the mTHA cohort had larger cup inclination angles on average compared to non-obese patients (44.82∘± 6.51 vs. 41.39∘± 6.75; p= 0.009). Obese mTHA patients were less likely to have cup placement within the Lewinnek zone compared to non-obese mTHA patients (0.48 vs. 0.67; p= 0.027). Obesity had no effect on the accuracy of RA-THA.

CONCLUSION

Obesity affects the placement of the acetabular component in manual THA. The novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic THA system in this study demonstrated accurate cup placement regardless of obesity status.

How much change in pelvic sagittal tilt can result in hip dislocation due to prosthetic impingement? A computer simulation study

Developing spinal pathologies and spinal fusion after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in increased pelvic retroversion (e.g., flat back deformity) or increased anterior pelvic tilt (caused by spinal stenosis, spinal fusion or other pathologies) while bending forward. This change in sagittal pelvic tilt (SPT) can result in prosthetic impingement and dislocation. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to prosthetic impingement. We hypothesized that the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to THA dislocation is less than 10° and it varies for different hip motions. Hip motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting and pivoting in Matlab software. The implant orientations and SPT angle were modified by 1° increments. The risk of prosthetic impingement in pivoting caused by increased pelvic retroversion (reciever operating characteristic [ROC] threshold as low as 1-3°) is higher than the risk of prosthetic impingement with increased pelvic anteversion (ROC threshold as low as 16-18°). Larger femoral heads decrease the risk of prosthetic impingement (odds ratio {OR}: 0.08 [932 mm head]; OR: 0.01 [36 mm head]; OR: 0.002 [40 mm head]). Femoral stems with a higher neck-shaft angle decrease the prosthetic impingement due to SPT change in motions requiring hip flexion (OR: 1.16 [132° stem]; OR: 4.94 [135° stem]). Our results show that overall, the risk of prosthetic impingement due to SPT change is low. In particular, this risk is very low when a larger diameter head is used and femoral offset and length are recreated to prevent bone on bone impingement.

Is Combined Anteversion Equally Affected by Acetabular Cup and Femoral Stem Anteversion?

BACKGROUND

To create a safe zone, an understanding of the combined femoral and acetabular mating during hip motion is required. We investigated the position of the femoral head inside the acetabular liner during simulated hip motion. We hypothesized that cup and stem anteversions do not equally affect hip motion and combined hip anteversion.

METHODS

Hip implant motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting, and pivoting positions using the MATLAB software. A line passing through the center of the stem neck and the center of the prosthetic head exits at the polar axis (PA) of the prosthetic head. When the prosthetic head and liner are parallel, the PA faces the center of the liner (PA position = 0, 0). By simulating hip motion in 1-degree increments, the maximum distance of the PA from the liner center and the direction of its movement were measured (polar coordination system).

RESULTS

The effect of modifying cup and stem anteversion on the direction and distance of the PA's change inside the acetabular liner was different. Stem anteversion influenced the PA position inside the liner more than cup anteversion during sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward (P = .0001). This effect was evident even when comparing stems with different neck angles (P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

Cup anteversion, stem anteversion, and stem neck-shaft angle affected the PA position inside the liner and combined anteversion in different ways. Thus, focusing on cup orientation alone when assessing hip motion during different daily activities is inadequate.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study

BACKGROUND

Improper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore sought to compare THA with a robotic-assisted posterior approach with manual alignment techniques through a posterior approach, using a matched-pair controlled study design, to assess whether the use of the robot made it more likely for the acetabular cup to be positioned in the safe zones described by Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al.

METHODS

Between September 2008 and September 2012, 160 THAs were performed by the senior surgeon. Sixty-two patients (38.8%) underwent THA using a conventional posterior approach, 69 (43.1%) underwent robotic-assisted THA using the posterior approach, and 29 (18.1%) underwent radiographic-guided anterior-approach THAs. From September 2008 to June 2011, all patients were offered anterior or posterior approaches regardless of BMI and anatomy. Since introduction of the robot in June 2011, all THAs were performed using the robotic technique through the posterior approach, unless a patient specifically requested otherwise. The radiographic cup positioning of the robotic-assisted THAs was compared with a matched-pair control group of conventional THAs performed by the same surgeon through the same posterior approach. The safe zone (inclination, 30°-50°; anteversion, 5°-25°) described by Lewinnek et al. and the modified safe zone (inclination, 30°-45°; anteversion, 5°-25°) of Callanan et al. were used for cup placement assessment. Matching criteria were gender, age ± 5 years, and (BMI) ± 7 units. After exclusions, a total of 50 THAs were included in each group. Strong interobserver and intraobserver correlations were found for all radiographic measurements (r > 0.82; p < 0.001).

RESULTS

One hundred percent (50/50) of the robotic-assisted THAs were within the safe zone described by Lewinnek et al. compared with 80% (40/50) of the conventional THAs (p = 0.001). Ninety-two percent (46/50) of robotic-assisted THAs were within the modified safe zone described by Callanan et al. compared with 62% (31/50) of conventional THAs p (p = 0.001). The odds ratios for an implanted cup out of the safe zones of Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al. were zero and 0.142, respectively (95% CI, 0.044, 0.457).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the robot allowed for improvement in placement of the cup in both safe zones, an important parameter that plays a significant role in long-term success of THA. However, whether the radiographic improvements we observed will translate into clinical benefits for patients-such as reductions in component impingement, acetabular wear, and prosthetic dislocations, or in terms of improved longevity-remains unproven.

Acetabular component positioning in primary THA via an anterior, posterolateral, or posterolateral-navigated surgical technique

The purpose of this study was to compare the acetabular component alignment in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) via 3 surgical techniques: direct anterior using intraoperative fluoroscopy, posterolateral using an external alignment guide (posterolateral conventional), and posterolateral using computer navigation (posterolateral navigated). Two surgeons performed the direct, anterior THAs; 2 surgeons performed the posterolateral-conventional THAs; and 1 surgeon performed the posterolateral-navigated THAs. The most recent 110 THAs performed using each approach were reviewed, and Einsel-Bild-Roentgen analysis software was used to measure the acetabular component abduction and anteversion. One-way analysis of variance showed the anterior cohort to have a more horizontal alignment of the acetabular component (P,.001); 90.9% of the acetabular components in the posterolateral- navigated cohort were within 40°610° and 15°610° for both acetabular abduction and anteversion, respectively, vs 70% in the posterolateral-conventional (P,.001), and 68.2% in the anterior cohort (P,.001). The anterior technique using intraoperative fluoroscopy does not improve acetabular positioning compared with the conventional, posterolateral technique.

Acetabular cup positioning in revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type III acetabular defects: Martell radiographic analysis

PURPOSE

This study evaluates acetabular cup position in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe acetabular bone defects.

METHODS

With a definition of safe zone of abduction (30-50°) and anteversion (5-25°), acetabular cup position was measured by a digital image analysis program for 34 patients with Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects.

RESULTS

There were 24 cups (71%) for abduction and 26 cups (76%) for anteversion located in the safe zone. Nineteen cups (56%) were within the safe zone for both abduction and anteversion. There was no dislocation, however one cup out of the safe zone resulted in early cup failure due to aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

The acetabular cup positioning in patients with Paprosky type III defects was 'optimal' in half of the cases. The prevalence of optimal acetabular cup position was similar to those reported in primary THA, suggesting that the presence of a large acetabular bone defect may not be a significant risk factor for suboptimal acetabular cup positioning in the setting of revision THA.

The reliability and variation of acetabular component anteversion measurements from cross-table lateral radiographs

Although cross-table lateral (CL) radiographs are frequently used to assess acetabular component anteversion, the reliability of this method has not been established. We compared serial CL radiographs with computed tomography (CT) scans for 98 total hip arthroplasty patients (119 hips) undergoing surveillance of primary or revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular anteversion averaged 26.1° (range, -2° to 48.3°) on CL imaging and 28.8° (range, -7° to 54°) on CT scan. There was a strong correlation between anteversion determined from CT scans and serial CL images. However, variation on serial CL studies exceeded 10° for 20% of patients. Although CL imaging provides acceptable assessment of general component position, it has limited use for precise analysis in research, outcome reporting, or determination of cause of implant failure.

Primary hip arthroplasty with 28-mm Metasul articulation

This follow-up study reports on 69 patients at mean 13 years with total hip arthroplasty using 28-mm Metasul (Zimmer, Winterthur, Switzerland) metal-on-metal articulation. These results are not transferable to large-diameter head metal-on-metal articulations. Four new revisions, 3 for disassociation of the liner and 1 for mechanical loosening of the acetabulum, occurred since the previous report of mean 7.3 years. The prevalent cause of late revision is disassociation, which suggests a high frictional torque or impingement in these articulation surfaces. No revision was done for osteolysis. Overall, of the original 127 hips, 116 (91%) were known to have maintained their original components.

The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined factors that affect acetabular cup positioning. Since cup positioning has been linked to dislocation and increased bearing surface wear, these factors affecting cup position are important considerations.

QUESTION/PURPOSES

We determined the percent of optimally positioned acetabular cups and whether patient and surgical factors affected acetabular component position.

METHODS

We obtained postoperative AP pelvis and cross-table lateral radiographs on 2061 consecutive patients who received a THA or hip resurfacing from 2004 to 2008. One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two hips had AP pelvic radiographs with correct position of the hip center, and 1823 had both version and abduction angles measured. The AP radiograph was measured using Hip Analysis Suite™ to calculate the cup inclination and version angles, using the lateral film to determine version direction. Acceptable ranges were defined for abduction (30°-45°) and version (5°-25°).

RESULTS

From the 1823 hips, 1144 (63%) acetabular cups were within the abduction range, 1441 (79%) were within the version range, and 917 (50%) were within the range for both. Surgical approach, surgeon volume, and obesity (body mass index > 30) independently predicted malpositioned cups. Comparison of low versus high volume surgeons, minimally invasive surgical versus posterolateral approach, and obesity versus all other body mass index groups showed a twofold (1.5-2.8), sixfold (3.5-10.7), and 1.3-fold (1.1-1.7) increased risk for malpositioned cups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors correlated to malpositioned cups included surgical approach, surgeon volume, and body mass index with increased risk of malpositioning for minimally invasive surgical approach, low volume surgeons, and obese patients. Further analyses on patient and surgical factors' influence on cup position at a lower volume medical center would provide a valuable comparison.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acetabular center axis: is it the future of hip navigation?

There are 2 distinct methods of cup navigation in total hip arthroplasty. One predicts orientation of the acetabulum through bony landmarks outside the acetabulum (eg, the anterior pelvic plane); its unreliability is well published. The other identifies acetabular center axis (ACA) and is patient-specific method that is independent of pelvic tilt, making it more reliable. Data from readily palpable acetabular registration points were compared with postoperative pelvic computed tomography images in 137 cases. Findings show that ACA software is accurate in determining acetabular/cup version and inclination. Cup center axis should coincide within 4 mm of ACA to minimize impingement and maximize stability without altering preoperative femoral version.

Wear and range of motion of different femoral head sizes

Femoral head sizes greater than 32 mm are more prevalent with current total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that linear wear rates of Durasul highly cross-linked polyethylene would not differ with different head sizes. We also compared the range of motion of the hip. Ninety-four consecutive arthroplasties in 84 patients were studied for a mean 3.6 +/- 0.7 years. There was no statistical difference in linear wear rates and annual or total penetration rates when 28-mm and 32-mm heads were compared to 38-mm and 44-mm heads. Volumetric wear was 12.4 mm(3)/y higher with bigger heads. Range of motion did not differ. Larger femoral head sizes show no evidence of an accelerated wear pattern when used with Durasul.