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.
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 obesepatients. 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.
Authors: Omid Sadr Azodi; Johanna Adami; David Lindström; Karl O Eriksson; Andreas Wladis; Rino Bellocco Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2008-07
Authors: G Saxler; A Marx; D Vandevelde; U Langlotz; M Tannast; M Wiese; U Michaelis; G Kemper; P A Grützner; R Steffen; M von Knoch; T Holland-Letz; K Bernsmann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ola Rolfson; Alastair Rothwell; Art Sedrakyan; Kate Eresian Chenok; Eric Bohm; Kevin J Bozic; Göran Garellick Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Benjamin McArthur; Michael Cross; Christina Geatrakas; David Mayman; Bernard Ghelman Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Marion Opperer; Yuo-yu Lee; Francisco Nally; Alvaro Blanes Perez; Kaveh Goudarz-Mehdikhani; Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Benjamin G Domb; Youssef F El Bitar; Adam Y Sadik; Christine E Stake; Itamar B Botser Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Clément M L Werner; Carol E Copeland; Thomas Ruckstuhl; Jeff Stromberg; Clifford H Turen; Samy Bouaicha Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Robert B Grupp; Rachel A Hegeman; Ryan J Murphy; Clayton P Alexander; Yoshito Otake; Benjamin A McArthur; Mehran Armand; Russell H Taylor Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.538