BACKGROUND: While surgical navigation offers the opportunity to accurately place an acetabular component, questions remain as to the best goal for acetabular component positioning in individual patients. Overall functional orientation of the pelvis after surgery is one of the most important variables for the surgeon to consider when determining the proper goal for acetabular component orientation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We measured the variation in pelvic tilt in 30 patients before THA and the effect of THA on pelvic tilt in the same patients more than a year after THA. METHODS: Each patient had a CT study for CT-based surgical navigation and standing and supine radiographs before and after surgery. Pelvic tilt was calculated for each of the radiographs using a novel and validated two-dimensional/three-dimensional matching technique. RESULTS: Mean supine pelvic tilt changed less than 2°, from 4.4° ± 6.4° (range, -7.7° to 20.8°) before THA to 6.3° ± 6.6° (range, -5.7° to 19.6°) after THA. Mean standing pelvic tilt changed less than 1°, from 1.5° ± 7.2° (range, -13.1° to 12.8°) before THA to 2.0° ± 8.3° (range, -12.3° to 16.8°) after THA. Preoperative pelvic tilt correlated with postoperative tilt in both the supine (r(2) = 0.75) and standing (r(2) = 0.87) positions. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, pelvic tilt had a small and predictable change after surgery. However, intersubject variability of pelvic tilt was high, suggesting preoperative pelvic tilt should be considered when determining desired acetabular component positioning on a patient-specific basis.
BACKGROUND: While surgical navigation offers the opportunity to accurately place an acetabular component, questions remain as to the best goal for acetabular component positioning in individual patients. Overall functional orientation of the pelvis after surgery is one of the most important variables for the surgeon to consider when determining the proper goal for acetabular component orientation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We measured the variation in pelvic tilt in 30 patients before THA and the effect of THA on pelvic tilt in the same patients more than a year after THA. METHODS: Each patient had a CT study for CT-based surgical navigation and standing and supine radiographs before and after surgery. Pelvic tilt was calculated for each of the radiographs using a novel and validated two-dimensional/three-dimensional matching technique. RESULTS: Mean supine pelvic tilt changed less than 2°, from 4.4° ± 6.4° (range, -7.7° to 20.8°) before THA to 6.3° ± 6.6° (range, -5.7° to 19.6°) after THA. Mean standing pelvic tilt changed less than 1°, from 1.5° ± 7.2° (range, -13.1° to 12.8°) before THA to 2.0° ± 8.3° (range, -12.3° to 16.8°) after THA. Preoperative pelvic tilt correlated with postoperative tilt in both the supine (r(2) = 0.75) and standing (r(2) = 0.87) positions. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, pelvic tilt had a small and predictable change after surgery. However, intersubject variability of pelvic tilt was high, suggesting preoperative pelvic tilt should be considered when determining desired acetabular component positioning on a patient-specific basis.
Authors: Michael Nogler; Oliver Kessler; Alexandra Prassl; Bill Donnelly; Robert Streicher; John B Sledge; Martin Krismer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.176
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: Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: Shantanu Patil; Arnie Bergula; Peter C Chen; Clifford W Colwell; Darryl D D'Lima Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Robert K Zahn; Sarah Grotjohann; Heiko Ramm; Stefan Zachow; Michael Putzier; Carsten Perka; Stephan Tohtz Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Prateek Goyal; Adrian Lau; Richard McCalden; Matthew G Teeter; James L Howard; Brent A Lanting Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Moritz Tannast; Stefan Fritsch; Guoyan Zheng; Klaus A Siebenrock; Simon D Steppacher Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Joseph D Maratt; Christina I Esposito; Alexander S McLawhorn; Seth A Jerabek; Douglas E Padgett; David J Mayman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Christina I Esposito; Brian P Gladnick; Yuo-Yu Lee; Stephen Lyman; Timothy M Wright; David J Mayman; Douglas E Padgett Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Louis M Day; Edward M DelSole; Bryan M Beaubrun; Peter L Zhou; John Y Moon; Jared C Tishelman; Jonathan M Vigdorchik; Ran Schwarzkopf; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Aaron J Buckland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 3.134