Literature DB >> 24088968

Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty.

Robert L Barrack1, Jeffrey A Krempec, John C Clohisy, Douglas J McDonald, William M Ricci, Erin L Ruh, Ryan M Nunley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acetabular component malposition is linked to higher bearing surface wear and component instability. Outcomes following total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement arthroplasty depend on multiple surgeon and patient-dependent factors. The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency in which acetabular components are placed within a predetermined target range.
METHODS: We evaluated postoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs for every consecutive primary total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement arthroplasty completed from 2004 to 2009 at a single institution. Acetabular component abduction and anteversion angles were determined using Martell Hip Analysis Suite software. We defined target ranges for abduction and anteversion for both total hip arthroplasty (30° to 55° and 5° to 35°, respectively) and surface replacement arthroplasty (30° to 50° and 5° to 25°, respectively). Surgeon and patient-related factors were analyzed for risk associated with placing the acetabular component outside the target range.
RESULTS: Of the 1549 total hip arthroplasties, 1435 components (93%) met our abduction target, 1472 (95%) met our anteversion target, and 1363 (88%) simultaneously met both targets. Of the 263 surface replacement arthroplasties, 233 components (89%) met our abduction target, 247 (94%) met our anteversion target, and 220 (84%) simultaneously met both targets. When previously published target ranges of abduction (30° to 45°) and anteversion (5° to 25°) angles were used, only 665 total hip replacements (43%) met the abduction target, 1325 (86%) met the anteversion target, and 584 (38%) simultaneously met both targets. Of the surface replacement arthroplasties, 181 (69%) met the abduction target, 247 (94%) met the anteversion target, and 172 (65%) simultaneously met both targets. Low-volume surgeons were 2.16 times more likely to miss target component position compared with high-volume surgeons (p = 0.002). The odds of missing the target increased by ≥ 0.2 for every 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index. Minimally invasive approaches, diagnosis, years of surgical experience, femoral head size, and age of the patient did not affect component position.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased odds of component malposition were found with lower-volume surgeons and higher body mass index. No other variables had a significant effect on component placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24088968     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  39 in total

1.  Can an Augmented Reality Headset Improve Accuracy of Acetabular Cup Orientation in Simulated THA? A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kartik Logishetty; Luke Western; Ruairidh Morgan; Farhad Iranpour; Justin P Cobb; Edouard Auvinet
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Fluoroscopy assessment during anterior minimally invasive hip replacement is more accurate than with the posterior approach.

Authors:  Weifeng Ji; Nathaniel Stewart
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Higher Acetabular Anteversion in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Antonia F Chen; Chi-Lung Chen; Sara Low; Wei-Ming Lin; Karthikeyan Chinnakkannu; Fabio R Orozco; Alvin C Ong; Zachary D Post
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2016-02-19

4.  Customized implants for acetabular Paprosky III defects may be positioned with high accuracy in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Markus Weber; Lena Witzmann; Jan Wieding; Joachim Grifka; Tobias Renkawitz; Benjamin Craiovan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Accuracy of the modified Hardinge approach in acetabular positioning.

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

6.  The 2014 Frank Stinchfield Award: The 'landing zone' for wear and stability in total hip arthroplasty is smaller than we thought: a computational analysis.

Authors:  Jacob M Elkins; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Radiographic assessment of the cup orientation after total hip arthroplasty: a literature review.

Authors:  Jing-Xin Zhao; Xiu-Yun Su; Zhe Zhao; Ruo-Xiu Xiao; Li-Cheng Zhang; Pei-Fu Tang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-02

8.  How Reliable is the Acetabular Cup Position Assessment from Routine Radiographs?

Authors:  Jaime A Carvajal Alba; Heather K Vincent; Jagdeep S Sodhi; Loren L Latta; Hari K Parvataneni
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2017

9.  A retrospective study on the relationship between altered native acetabular angle and vertical implant malpositioning.

Authors:  Jorge Rojas; Maria Bautista; Guillermo Bonilla; Omar Amado; Elina Huerfano; Daniel Monsalvo; Adolfo Llinás; José Navas
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  An Alternative Intraoperative Radiographic Method for Optimizing Cup Inclination during Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gang-Yong Huang; Guang-Lei Zhao; Jun Xia; Yi-Bing Wei; Si-Qun Wang; Jian-Guo Wu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.