Roger H Emerson1. 1. Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Plano, Plano, TX, USA. rhemerson@msn.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With contemporary canal-filling press-fit stems, there is no adjustability of stem position in the canal and therefore the canal anatomy determines stem version. Stem version will affect head/neck impingement, polyethylene wear from edge loading, and hip stability, but despite this, the postoperative version of a canal-filling press-fit stem is unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a difference between the version of the nonoperated femur and the final version of a canal-filling press-fit femoral component? Could a difference create an alignment problem for the hip replacement? METHODS: Sixty-four hips were studied with fluoroscopy and 46 nonarthritic and 41 arthritic hips were studied with MRI. A standardized fluoroscopic technique for determining preoperative and postoperative femoral version was developed with the patient supine on a fracture table undergoing supine total hip arthroplasty. To validate the methods, the results were compared with two selected series of axial MRI views of the hip comparing the version of the head with the version of the canal at the base of the neck. RESULTS: For the operated hips, the mean anatomic hip version was less than the stem version: 18.9° versus 27.0°. The difference on average was 8.1° of increased anteversion (SD, 7.4°). Both MRI series showed the femoral neck was more anteverted on average than the femoral head, thereby explaining the operative findings. CONCLUSION: With a canal-filling press-fit femoral component there is wide variation of postoperative component anteversion with most stems placed in increased anteversion compared with the anatomic head. The surgical technique may need to adjust for this if causing intraoperative impingement or instability.
BACKGROUND: With contemporary canal-filling press-fit stems, there is no adjustability of stem position in the canal and therefore the canal anatomy determines stem version. Stem version will affect head/neck impingement, polyethylene wear from edge loading, and hip stability, but despite this, the postoperative version of a canal-filling press-fit stem is unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a difference between the version of the nonoperated femur and the final version of a canal-filling press-fit femoral component? Could a difference create an alignment problem for the hip replacement? METHODS: Sixty-four hips were studied with fluoroscopy and 46 nonarthritic and 41 arthritic hips were studied with MRI. A standardized fluoroscopic technique for determining preoperative and postoperative femoral version was developed with the patient supine on a fracture table undergoing supine total hip arthroplasty. To validate the methods, the results were compared with two selected series of axial MRI views of the hip comparing the version of the head with the version of the canal at the base of the neck. RESULTS: For the operated hips, the mean anatomic hip version was less than the stem version: 18.9° versus 27.0°. The difference on average was 8.1° of increased anteversion (SD, 7.4°). Both MRI series showed the femoral neck was more anteverted on average than the femoral head, thereby explaining the operative findings. CONCLUSION: With a canal-filling press-fit femoral component there is wide variation of postoperative component anteversion with most stems placed in increased anteversion compared with the anatomic head. The surgical technique may need to adjust for this if causing intraoperative impingement or instability.
Authors: Anisha B Patel; Rohan R Wagle; Molly M Usrey; Matt T Thompson; Stephen J Incavo; Philip C Noble Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 4.757