PURPOSE: Several studies have reported a risk of dislocation in obese patients after total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we evaluated the interaction between obesity and dislocation by kinematic analysis using a navigation system. METHODS: The intraoperative range of motion (ROM) and postoperative impingement-free ROM were measured in 38 patients, and we compared the impingement-free ROM in obese and non obese patients. RESULTS: The postoperatively simulated ROM was similar in the obese and non obese groups. The intraoperative ROM was smaller in the obese group. The difference values between the intraoperative ROM and postoperatively simulated ROM were larger in the obese group. These results indicate that obese patients have less ROM following primary total hip arthroplasty even when the implant positioning is performed correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocations are multifactorial problems including soft tissue impingement. Therefore, the risk of dislocation caused by soft tissue impingement in obese patients may be increased.
PURPOSE: Several studies have reported a risk of dislocation in obesepatients after total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we evaluated the interaction between obesity and dislocation by kinematic analysis using a navigation system. METHODS: The intraoperative range of motion (ROM) and postoperative impingement-free ROM were measured in 38 patients, and we compared the impingement-free ROM in obese and non obesepatients. RESULTS: The postoperatively simulated ROM was similar in the obese and non obese groups. The intraoperative ROM was smaller in the obese group. The difference values between the intraoperative ROM and postoperatively simulated ROM were larger in the obese group. These results indicate that obesepatients have less ROM following primary total hip arthroplasty even when the implant positioning is performed correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocations are multifactorial problems including soft tissue impingement. Therefore, the risk of dislocation caused by soft tissue impingement in obesepatients may be increased.
Authors: Elizabeth W Karlson; Lisa A Mandl; Gideon N Aweh; Oliver Sangha; Matthew H Liang; Francine Grodstein Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: A M Lievense; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; A P Verhagen; M E van Baar; J A N Verhaar; B W Koes Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Jacob M Elkins; Matej Daniel; Douglas R Pedersen; Bhupinder Singh; H John Yack; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Michael Woerner; Markus Weber; Ernst Sendtner; Robert Springorum; Michael Worlicek; Benjamin Craiovan; Joachim Grifka; Tobias Renkawitz Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Pierre Martz; Abderrahmane Bourredjem; Jean Francis Maillefert; Christine Binquet; Emmanuel Baulot; Paul Ornetti; Davy Laroche Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Jean Charles Auregan; Damien Potage; François Roubineau; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette; Arnaud Dubory Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Setor K Kunutsor; Matthew C Barrett; Andrew D Beswick; Andrew Judge; Ashley W Blom; Vikki Wylde; Michael R Whitehouse Journal: Lancet Rheumatol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Matthieu Trousselier; François Roubineau; Charlie Bouthors; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.176