scholarly journals Accuracy of Acetabular Component Position in Hip Arthroplasty

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (19) ◽  
pp. 1760-1768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L Barrack ◽  
Jeffrey A Krempec ◽  
John C Clohisy ◽  
Douglas J McDonald ◽  
William M Ricci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Acetabular Component Position

The Effects of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery on Total Hip Arthroplasty Acetabular Component Position

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. S260
Author(s):  
Murat S. Eksi ◽  
Altug Yucekul ◽  
Jeffrey J. Barry ◽  
Alexander A. Theologis ◽  
Jun Mizutani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Spinal Deformity Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Component Position

Pelvic rotation after total hip arthroplasty is dynamic and variable

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (7_Supple_B) ◽  
pp. 47-51
Author(s):  
Gregory S. Kazarian ◽  
Derek T. Schloemann ◽  
Toby N. Barrack ◽  
Charles M. Lawrie ◽  
Robert L. Barrack
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Acetabular Component Position

Aims The aims of this study were to determine the change in the sagittal alignment of the pelvis and the associated impact on acetabular component position at one-year follow-up after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods This study represents the one-year follow-up of a previous short-term study at our institution. Using the patient population from our prior study, the radiological pelvic ratio was assessed in 91 patients undergoing THA, of whom 50 were available for follow-up of at least one year (median 1.5; interquartile range (IQR) 1.1 to 2.0). Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis were obtained in the standing position preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. Pelvic ratio was defined as the ratio between the vertical distance from the inferior sacroiliac (SI) joints to the superior pubic symphysis and the horizontal distance between the inferior SI joints. Apparent acetabular component position changes were determined from the change in pelvic ratio. A change of at least 5° was considered clinically meaningful. Results Pelvic ratio decreased (posterior tilt) in 54.0% (27) of cases, did not change significantly in 34.0% (17) of cases, and increased (anterior tilt) in 12.0% (6) of cases when comparing preoperative to one-year postoperative radiographs. This would correspond with 5° to 10° of abduction error in 22.0% of cases and > 10° of error in 6.0%. Likewise, this would correspond with 5° to 10° of version error in 22.0% of cases and > 10° of error in 44.0%. Conclusion Pelvic sagittal alignment is dynamic and variable after THA, and these changes persist to the one-year postoperative period, altering the orientation of the acetabular component. Surgeons who individualize the acetabular component placement based on preoperative functional radiographs should consider that the rotation of the pelvis (and thus the component version and inclination) changes one year postoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):47–51.

Postoperative acetabular component position in revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the anterior and posterior approaches

2020 ◽  
pp. 112070002094245
Author(s):  
Jacob M Wilson ◽  
Andrew M Schwartz ◽  
Kevin X Farley ◽  
Albert T Anastasio ◽  
Thomas L Bradbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Direct Anterior Approach ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Intraoperative Fluoroscopy ◽  
Component Revision ◽  
Safe Zones ◽  
Cup Positioning ◽  
Acetabular Component Position

Background: While previously considered unsuitable for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), the direct anterior approach (DAA) can be extended to allow for safe acetabular component revision. In primary hip arthroplasty, the DAA and its associated fluoroscopy, has been shown to produce more acceptable component positioning. However, there is little data comparing the DAA to the posterior approach (PA) for rTHA. We hypothesised that, the DAA with intraoperative fluoroscopy would allow for more precise acetabular component positioning when compared to those performed using a PA. Methods: 50 consecutive patients (25 DAA and 25 PA) undergoing rTHA were included. Radiographic analysis of postoperative acetabular component position was then performed. Univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to assess the contribution of approach on cup positioning inside classically defined “safe zones”. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar. The PA was associated with more cups placed outside the Lewinnek (48% vs. 12%, p = 0.005) and the Danoff (52% vs. 28%, p = 0.083) “safe zones” when compared to the DAA. Multivariate analysis revealed that operative approach was the only patient or surgical factor associated with component position outside of the “safe zones” (Lewinnek [OR = 13.6; 95% CI, 2.12–87.9, p = 0.006] and Danoff [OR = 7.7; 95% CI, 1.48–40.1, p = 0.015]). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the DAA allows for more reproducible and precise cup placement in RTHA. The safe-zone paradigm remains a useful index of accurate cup positioning and the DAA, with use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, offers more consistent acetabular component positioning when compared to the PA.

Characterising acetabular component orientation with pelvic motion during total hip arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
pp. 112070002092501
Author(s):  
Cameron J Killen ◽  
Michael P Murphy ◽  
Steven J Ralles ◽  
Saeed Khayatzadeh ◽  
Nicholas M Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Acetabular Cup ◽  
Surgical Equipment ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Pelvic Motion ◽  
Acetabular Component Position ◽  
Roll Tilt

Introduction: Suboptimal acetabular component position can result in impingement, dislocation, and accelerated wear. Intraoperative pelvic motion has led to surgeon error and acetabular cup malposition. This study characterises the relationship between pelvic rotation and postoperative acetabular cup orientation. Methods: A device was constructed to allow cadaveric pelvis rotation along three axes about an acetabular cup in fixed orientation. The acetabular cup was fixed in space at 40° of radiographic inclination and 15° of anteversion relative to the anterior pelvic plane to represent consistent surgeon intraoperative placement. Active marker clusters were fixed to surgical equipment while the cadaveric pelvis was cemented with passive reflective markers, both identified with the Optotrak Certus motion capture system. The reamed cadaveric pelvis was rotated along three axes from –45° to 45° of roll, –30° to 30° of tilt, and –35° to 35° of pitch. The change in component inclination and anteversion was recorded at each 5° interval. Using computed tomography 3D reconstruction, the experimental setup was duplicated computationally to assess against a greater range of pelvis and implant sizes. Results: Radiographic anteversion and inclination showed a non-linear relationship dependent on pelvic roll, tilt, and pitch. Radiographic anteversion changed –0.59°, 0.76° and 0.01° while radiographic inclination changed 0.23°, 0.18° and 1.00° for every 1° of pelvic roll, tilt and pitch, respectively. Computationally, anteversion changed –0.61°, 0.75° and 0.00° while inclination changed 0.22°, 0.19° and 1.00° for every 1° of pelvic roll, tilt and pitch, respectively. These results were independent of cup and pelvis size. Conclusions: Intraoperative pelvic motion can significantly affect final cup position, and this should be accounted for when placing acetabular components during total hip arthroplasty. Based on this study, intraoperative adjustment of the acetabular component position based on pelvis motion may be implemented to improve postoperative component position.

Body mass index and acetabular component position in total hip arthroplasty

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew McBride ◽  
Jennifer Flynn ◽  
George Miller ◽  
Matthew Barnes ◽  
Scott Mackie
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Position ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Acetabular Component Position
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document