Samy Bendaya1, Carolyn Anglin2, Jean-Yves Lazennec3, Rachele Allena4, Philippe Thoumie5, Wafa Skalli4. 1. Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France; Hôpital Rothschild AP-HP, Paris, France. 2. Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France; Biomedical Engineering Civil Engineering, and McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France; Departments of Orthopaedics and Anatomy, Hôpital Universitaire Pitié-Salpêtrière, UPMC, Paris, France. 4. Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France. 5. Hôpital Rothschild AP-HP, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing imaging techniques and single-parameter analyses, in nonfunctional positions, fail to detect the differences between patients with good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The present study developed an analysis method using the EOS full-body, low-dose, biplanar, weightbearing imaging system to compare good vs poor patients after total hip arthroplasty and to report on our preliminary experiences (17 good, 18 poor). RESULTS: All revision cases were found to have at least 4 high or low implant or anatomic parameters relative to the good group. These included acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset, and neck-shaft angle. Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: With the EOS system, a large cohort can be studied relatively quickly and at low dose, which could lead to patient-specific guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Existing imaging techniques and single-parameter analyses, in nonfunctional positions, fail to detect the differences between patients with good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The present study developed an analysis method using the EOS full-body, low-dose, biplanar, weightbearing imaging system to compare good vs poor patients after total hip arthroplasty and to report on our preliminary experiences (17 good, 18 poor). RESULTS: All revision cases were found to have at least 4 high or low implant or anatomic parameters relative to the good group. These included acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset, and neck-shaft angle. Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: With the EOS system, a large cohort can be studied relatively quickly and at low dose, which could lead to patient-specific guidelines.
Authors: Charles Rivière; Stefan Lazic; Louis Dagneaux; Catherine Van Der Straeten; Justin Cobb; Sarah Muirhead-Allwood Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2018-02-21