AIM: To determine hip joint center (HJC) location on hip arthroplasty population comparing predictive and functional approaches with radiographic measurements. METHODS: The distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis was calculated and compared between the three approaches. The localisation error between the predictive and functional approach was compared using the radiographic measurements as the reference. The operated leg was compared to the non-operated leg. RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis when comparing the predictive and functional method. The functional method leads to fewer errors. A statistical difference was found for the localization error between the predictive and functional method. The functional method is twice more precise. CONCLUSION: Although being more individualized, the functional method improves HJC localization and should be used in three-dimensional gait analysis.
AIM: To determine hip joint center (HJC) location on hip arthroplasty population comparing predictive and functional approaches with radiographic measurements. METHODS: The distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis was calculated and compared between the three approaches. The localisation error between the predictive and functional approach was compared using the radiographic measurements as the reference. The operated leg was compared to the non-operated leg. RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis when comparing the predictive and functional method. The functional method leads to fewer errors. A statistical difference was found for the localization error between the predictive and functional method. The functional method is twice more precise. CONCLUSION: Although being more individualized, the functional method improves HJC localization and should be used in three-dimensional gait analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Functional approach; Hip arthroplasty; Hip joint center localization; Predictive approach; Radiographic measurements
Authors: Olwen Williams; Ray Fitzpatrick; Shakoor Hajat; Barnaby C Reeves; Anne Stimpson; Richard W Morris; David W Murray; Marianne Rigge; Paul J Gregg Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Julie Nantel; Nicolas Termoz; Pascal-André Vendittoli; Martin Lavigne; François Prince Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Sumayeh B Abujaber; Adam R Marmon; Federico Pozzi; James J Rubano; Joseph A Zeni Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: K N Jochimsen; L Brown-Taylor; J Perry; K Glaws; C L Lewis; J Ryan; S Di Stasi Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 2.034
Authors: Lindsey Brown-Taylor; Brittany Schroeder; Cara L Lewis; Jennifer Perry; Timothy E Hewett; John Ryan; Stephanie Di Stasi Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Lindsey Brown-Taylor; Jordan Wilson; Michael McNally; Jennifer Perry; Rebecca D Jackson; Timothy E Hewett; John Ryan; Michael V Knopp; Jason E Payne; Stephanie Di Stasi Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.840