Literature DB >> 27106215

Current standard rules of combined anteversion prevent prosthetic impingement but ignore osseous contact in total hip arthroplasty.

Markus Weber1, Michael Woerner2, Benjamin Craiovan2, Florian Voellner2, Michael Worlicek2, Hans-Robert Springorum2, Joachim Grifka2, Tobias Renkawitz2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this prospective study of 135 patients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) we asked whether six current definitions of combined anteversion prevent impingement and increase postoperative patient individual impingement-free range-of-motion (ROM).
METHODS: Implant position was measured by an independent, external institute on 3D-CT performed six weeks post-operatively. Post-operative ROM was calculated using a CT-based algorithm detecting osseous and/or prosthetic impingement by virtual hip movement. Additionally, clinical ROM was evaluated pre-operatively and one-year post-operatively by a blinded observer.
RESULTS: Combined component position of cup and stem according to the definitions of Ranawat, Widmer, Dorr, Hisatome and Yoshimine inhibited prosthetic impingement in over 90 %, while combined osseous and prosthetic impingement still occurred in over 40 % of the cases. The recommendations by Jolles, Widmer, Dorr, Yoshimine and Hisatome enabled higher flexion (p ≤ 0.001) and internal rotation (p ≤ 0.006). Clinically, anteversion rules of Widmer and Yoshimine provided one-year post-operatively statistically but not clinically relevant higher internal rotation (p ≤0.034).
CONCLUSION: Standard rules of combined anteversion detect prosthetic but fail to prevent combined osseous and prosthetic impingement in THA. Future models will have to account for the patient-individual anatomic situation to ensure impingement-free ROM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Combined anteversion; Impingement; Outcome; Range of motion; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27106215     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3171-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  29 in total

1.  Three-dimensional in vivo difference between native acetabular version and acetabular component version influences iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kwan Kyu Park; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Dimitris Dimitriou; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA.

Authors:  Zhinian Wan; Aamer Malik; Branislav Jaramaz; Lisa Chao; Lawrence D Dorr
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Establishing a range of motion boundary for total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  G A Turley; S M Y Ahmed; M A Williams; D R Griffin
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.617

4.  Development and evaluation of an image-free computer-assisted impingement detection technique for total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tobias Renkawitz; Martin Haimerl; Lars Dohmen; Michael Woerner; Hans-Robert Springorum; Ernst Sendtner; Guido Heers; Markus Weber; Joachim Grifka
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 1.617

5.  The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation.

Authors:  D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-03

6.  Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis.

Authors:  B M Jolles; P Zangger; P-F Leyvraz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  [Complications after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  R Hube; M Dienst; P von Roth
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system.

Authors:  Hidenobu Miki; Wataru Yamanashi; Takashi Nishii; Yoshinobu Sato; Hideki Yoshikawa; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  MicroHip: a minimally invasive procedure for total hip replacement surgery using a modified Smith-Peterson approach.

Authors:  Markus C Michel; Pierre Witschger
Journal:  Ortop Traumatol Rehabil       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb

10.  Minimally invasive computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty, following the concept of femur first and combined anteversion: design of a blinded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Tobias Renkawitz; Martin Haimerl; Lars Dohmen; Sabine Gneiting; Melanie Wegner; Nicole Ehret; Claudia Buchele; Mario Schubert; Philipp Lechler; Michael Woerner; Ernst Sendtner; Tibor Schuster; Kurt Ulm; Robert Springorum; Joachim Grifka
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  8 in total

1.  Can we trust combined anteversion and Lewinnek safe zone to avoid hip prosthesis dislocation?

Authors:  Alejandro Hernández; Kushal Lakhani; Jorge H Núñez; Iñaki Mimendia; Aleix Pons; Víctor Barro
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-08-08

2.  Which Safe Zone Is Safe in Total Hip Arthroplasty? The Effect of Bony Impingement.

Authors:  Markus Weber; Frederik von Kunow; Moritz Innmann; Matthias Meyer; Max Thieme; Seth Jerabek; Tobias Renkawitz
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-05-18

3.  Measurement of operative femoral anteversion during cementless total hip arthroplasty and influencing factors for using neck-adjustable femoral stem.

Authors:  Jingyang Sun; Bohan Zhang; Lei Geng; Qingyuan Zheng; Juncheng Li; Wenzhe Cao; Ming Ni; Guoqiang Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Is Combined Anteversion Equally Affected by Acetabular Cup and Femoral Stem Anteversion?

Authors:  Aidin Eslam Pour; Ran Schwarzkopf; Kunj Pareshkumar Patel; Manan Anjaria; Jean Yves Lazennec; Lawrence D Dorr
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 4.435

5.  Femur First navigation can reduce impingement severity compared to traditional free hand total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Arnab Palit; Mark A Williams; Glen A Turley; Tobias Renkawitz; Markus Weber
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Impact of stem design and cementation on postoperative femoral antetorsion in 227 patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Authors:  Tim Fischer; Christoph Stern; Benjamin Fritz; Patrick O Zingg; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Reto Sutter
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Bone-to-Bone and Implant-to-Bone Impingement: A Novel Graphical Representation for Hip Replacement Planning.

Authors:  Arnab Palit; Richard King; Zoe Hart; Yolanda Gu; James Pierrepont; Mark T Elliott; Mark A Williams
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 3.934

8.  Inaccurate offset restoration in total hip arthroplasty results in reduced range of motion.

Authors:  Markus Weber; Christian Merle; Danyal H Nawabi; Sebastian Dendorfer; Joachim Grifka; Tobias Renkawitz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.