Literature DB >> 20675749

Optimal acetabular orientation for hip resurfacing.

G Grammatopoulos1, H Pandit, S Glyn-Jones, P McLardy-Smith, R Gundle, D Whitwell, H S Gill, D W Murray.   

Abstract

Pseudotumours are a rare complication of hip resurfacing. They are thought to be a response to metal debris which may be caused by edge loading due to poor orientation of the acetabular component. Our aim was to determine the optimal acetabular orientation to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation. We matched 31 hip resurfacings revised for pseudotumour formation with 58 controls who had a satisfactory outcome from this procedure. The radiographic inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular component were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis using Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse software. The mean inclination angle (47 degrees, 10 degrees to 81 degrees) and anteversion angle (14 degrees, 4 degrees to 34 degrees) of the pseudotumour cases were the same (p = 0.8, p = 0.2) as the controls, 46 degrees (29 degrees to 60 degrees) and 16 degrees (4 degrees to 30 degrees) respectively, but the variation was greater. Assuming an accuracy of implantation of +/- 10 degrees about a target position, the optimal radiographic position was found to be approximately 45 degrees of inclination and 20 degrees of anteversion. The incidence of pseudotumours inside the zone was four times lower (p = 0.007) than outside the zone. In order to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation we recommend that surgeons implant the acetabular component at an inclination of 45 degrees (+/- 10) and anteversion of 20 degrees (+/- 10) on post-operative radiographs. Because of differences between the radiographic and the operative angles, this may be best achieved by aiming for an inclination of 40 degrees and an anteversion of 25 degrees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20675749     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.24194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  25 in total

1.  Squeaking: Current knowledge and how to avoid it.

Authors:  Arjuna M Imbuldeniya; Simon J Pearce; William L Walter; Bernard A Zicat; William K Walter
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-12

2.  Difference in the acetabular cup orientation in standing and supine radiographs.

Authors:  Munir Khan; Tom Beckingsale; Martin Marsh; Jim Holland
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-04-05

3.  A hierarchy of computationally derived surgical and patient influences on metal on metal press-fit acetabular cup failure.

Authors:  S G Clarke; A T M Phillips; A M J Bull; J P Cobb
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Influence of implant design on blood metal ion concentrations in metal-on-metal total hip replacement patients.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; Paul B Pynsent; Ronan B Treacy; David J Dunlop
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Three-dimensional morphological analysis of true acetabulum in Crowe type IV hip dysplasia via standard-sized cup-simulated implantation.

Authors:  Yuhui Yang; Yuanchen Ma; Qingtian Li; Bofu Lin; Hang Dong; Qiujian Zheng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-05

6.  The area method for measuring acetabular cup anteversion: An accurate and autonomous solution.

Authors:  Michael P Murphy; Cameron J Killen; Steven J Ralles; Nicholas M Brown; Albert J Song; Karen Wu
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-04-14

Review 7.  Metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: Where are we now?

Authors:  E J Clough; T M Clough
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-31

8.  Revision of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in a tertiary center: a prospective study of 39 hips with between 1 and 4 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle; Keshtra Satchithananda; Johann Henckel; Shiraz A Sabah; Karuniyan V Vipulendran; Angus Lewis; John A Skinner; Adam W M Mitchell; Alister J Hart
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Assessment of cup orientation in hip resurfacing: a comparison of TraumaCad and computed tomography.

Authors:  Daniel J Westacott; John McArthur; Richard J King; Pedro Foguet
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  In vivo evaluation of edge-loading in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients with pseudotumours.

Authors:  Y-M Kwon; S J Mellon; P Monk; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 5.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.