Literature DB >> 35288768

Implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty: influence of horizontal and vertical offset on functionality of prosthetic hip joint.

Arun Vaishy1, Mohd Arif2, Rahul Aanand1, Kamaldeep Singh3, Hitesh Kumar Rulaniya1, Naveen Kumawat1, Ramakishan Choudhary1, Paras Choudhary4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of implant position measured in terms of offset on patient reported outcomes (PRO) following hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS: A total of 243 patients of the total hip replacement who had a one year follow-up were included in the study. Standard both hips radiograph was used to asses post-surgery implant position in terms of horizontal offset and vertical offset, and correlated with functional outcome which was evaluated as change in PRO. i.e., Harris hip score (HHS) post-op. With center of hip rotation as reference, horizontal offset was calculated as sum of distance, of centre, from proximal femoral shaft axis and a vertical line through ipsilateral teardrop, and vertical offset as limb length discrepancy. Post-op patients were classified into three groups depending on the measurement of horizontal offset of the operated hip. The patients having operated hip horizontal offset within 5 mm of the normal hip were grouped as restored offset (RO); those having shorter or higher offset by more than 5 mm compared to normal hip were labeled as decreased (DO) or increased offset (IO) group respectively. The groups were further subdivided into suboptimal and optimal function groups based on HHS, and among these groups, limb length discrepancy was evaluated.
RESULTS: Post follow-up mean HHS (78.23 ± 9.96) improved significantly in all three groups (p < 0.0001). The difference in post-operative HHS among DO, RO, and IO groups was significant, with their averages being 72.5 ± 4.7, 82.1 ± 6.5, and 75.2 ± 4.8 respectively (p = .01). Limb length discrepancy was significantly more common in patients with suboptimal functional scores in all three groups.
CONCLUSION: This study concluded that both horizontal offset and vertical offset should be reconstructed in patients operated with unilateral THR due to hip pathology, since both factor demonstrated a comparable additive effect on clinical outcome.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hip arthroplasty; Horizontal offset; Implant position; Vertical offset

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35288768     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05364-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.479


  19 in total

1.  Soft tissue balancing: the hip.

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Relationship between radiographic measurements of reconstructed hip joint position and the Trendelenburg sign.

Authors:  Isao Asayama; Masatoshi Naito; Motoyuki Fujisawa; Taichi Kambe
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Mortality, morbidity, and 1-year outcomes of primary elective total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Olwen Williams; Ray Fitzpatrick; Shakoor Hajat; Barnaby C Reeves; Anne Stimpson; Richard W Morris; David W Murray; Marianne Rigge; Paul J Gregg
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Fast Starters, Slow Starters, and Late Dippers: Trajectories of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Results from a Dutch Nationwide Database.

Authors:  B Hesseling; N M C Mathijssen; L N van Steenbergen; M Melles; S B W Vehmeijer; J T Porsius
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients.

Authors:  Raymond E Anakwe; Paul J Jenkins; Matthew Moran
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement.

Authors:  C H MacWilliam; M U Yood; J J Verner; B D McCarthy; R E Ward
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results.

Authors:  N Confalonieri; A Manzotti; P Cerveri; E De Momi
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients.

Authors:  Andrew David Beswick; Vikki Wylde; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Ashley Blom; Paul Dieppe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Predictors of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  L D Buirs; L W A H Van Beers; V A B Scholtes; T Pastoors; S Sprague; R W Poolman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Current Concepts in Acetabular Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Deepu Bhaskar; Asim Rajpura; Tim Board
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.