Literature DB >> 19884433

A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Lawrence D Dorr1, Zhinian Wan, Aamer Malik, Jinjun Zhu, Manish Dastane, Prashant Deshmane.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The intraoperative estimation of the anteversion of the femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty is generally made by the surgeon's visual assessment of the stem position relative to the condylar plane of the femur. Although the generally accepted range of intended anteversion is between 10 degrees and 20 degrees, we suspected that achieving this range of anteversion consistently during cementless implantation of the femoral component was more difficult than previously thought.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the accuracy of femoral component anteversion in 109 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (ninety-nine patients), in which we implanted the femoral component without cement. In all hips, we measured femoral stem anteversion postoperatively with three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction of the femur, using both the distal femoral epicondyles and the posterior femoral condyles to determine the femoral diaphyseal plane. The bias and precision of the measurements were calculated.
RESULTS: The surgeon's estimate of femoral stem anteversion was a mean (and standard deviation) of 9.6 degrees +/- 7.2 degrees (range, -8 degrees to 28 degrees). The anteversion of the stem measured by computed tomography was a mean of 10.2 degrees +/- 7.5 degrees (range, -8.6 degrees to 27.1 degrees) (p = 0.324). The correlation coefficient between the surgeon's estimate and the computed tomographic measurement was 0.688; the intraclass coefficient was 0.801. Anteversion measured by computed tomography found that forty-nine stems (45%) were between 10 degrees and 20 degrees of anteversion; forty-three stems (39%) were between 0 degree and 9 degrees of femoral anteversion; eight stems (7%) were in anteversion of >20 degrees; and nine stems (8%) were in retroversion.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon's estimation of the anteversion of the cementless femoral stem has poor precision and is often not within the intended range of 10 degrees to 20 degrees of anteversion. The implications of this finding increase the importance of achieving a safe range of motion by evaluating the combined anteversion of the stem and the cup.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19884433     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  32 in total

1.  Increased anteversion of press-fit femoral stems compared with anatomic femur.

Authors:  Roger H Emerson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty using the MAKO platform.

Authors:  Rupesh Tarwala; Lawrence D Dorr
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-09

3.  The sagittal stem alignment and the stem version clearly influence the impingement-free range of motion in total hip arthroplasty: a computer model-based analysis.

Authors:  Michael Müller; Georg Duda; Carsten Perka; Stephan Tohtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  CORR Insights®: Does Robotic Milling For Stem Implantation in Cementless THA Result in Improved Outcomes Scores or Survivorship Compared with Hand Rasping? Results of a Randomized Trial at 10 Years.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The 2014 Frank Stinchfield Award: The 'landing zone' for wear and stability in total hip arthroplasty is smaller than we thought: a computational analysis.

Authors:  Jacob M Elkins; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Influencing factors for the increased stem version compared to the native femur in cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Masanobu Hirata; Yasuharu Nakashima; Takashi Itokawa; Masanobu Ohishi; Taishi Sato; Mio Akiyama; Daisuke Hara; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Computed tomographic measurement of acetabular and femoral component version in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Takaaki Fujishiro; Shinya Hayashi; Noriyuki Kanzaki; Shingo Hashimoto; Masahiro Kurosaka; Taiki Kanno; Takeshi Masuda
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Incidental findings detected on preoperative CT imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacements: clinical importance and the effect on the scheduled arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gary Tran; Lafi S Khalil; Allen Wrubel; Chad L Klochko; Jason J Davis; Steven B Soliman
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Accuracy of combined anteversion in image-free navigated total hip arthroplasty: stem-first or cup-first technique?

Authors:  Shigeo Fukunishi; Shoji Nishio; Yuki Fujihara; Shohei Okahisa; Yu Takeda; Tomokazu Fukui; Shinichi Yoshiya
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Low femoral antetorsion and total hip arthroplasty: a risk factor.

Authors:  Takeshi Shoji; Yuji Yasunaga; Takuma Yamasaki; Soutarou Izumi; Susumu Hachisuka; Mitsuo Ochi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.