Abstract
Introduction
To obtain a better range of motion and to reduce the risk of dislocation, neck and cup anteversion are considered very important. Especially for the reduction of the risk of dislocation, the mutual alignment between neck and cup anteversion (combined anteversion) is often discussed. A surgeon would compare the neck direction to the calf direction with the knee in 90 degrees flexion. When an excessive anteversion was observed, the neck anteversion would be reduced using modular neck system or setting the stem a little twisted inside the canal with the tradeoff of the stem stability. Another choice would be the adjustment of cup alignment. Combined anteversion is defined the summation of cup anteversion in axial plane and stem anteversion in axial plane. But in realty the impingement occurs with 3 dimensional relationships between neck and cup with very complicated geometries. In that meaning, the definition of the angles could be said ambiguous too. The bowing of the femur also makes the relationships more complicated. Upon those backgrounds, we have been performing 3D preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty on every case. In the present study, in vivo position of the stem in each case was determined then the anteversion observed on surgical view and anteversion around femoral mechanical axis are compared using 3D CAD software.
Materials and Methods
Ten recent cases from our hip arthroplasty with 3D preoperative planning were reviewed for this purpose. The bone geometries were obtained from CAT scans with very low X-ray dose using Mimics® (Materialize, Belgium). Preoperative planning for Revelation stem® (DJO, USA) was performed using Mimics® (Materialize, Belgium). Femoral mechanical axis was defined as a line between center of femoral head and the middle point of medial and lateral epicondyle of the femur. Then mechanical anteversion is assessed from posterior condylar line. On the other hand, the calf was rotated 90 degrees around epiconlylar axis of each femur, and in vivo stem position was estimated then, stem axis was aligned perpendicular to the view. The anteversion in the surgical view was assessed from that view as the angle toward the calf. (Fig. 1) Using in vivo stem alignment, the impingement angle was also assessed.
Results
Anteversion was in average 10 degree overestimated in the surgical view. Only one case was considered to have impingement risk and reduction of the anteversion was performed using custom stem.
Discussion
In real surgical view, the anteversions are often observed to be more. In the present study instability of the knee was not considered. If the surgeon has performed inappropriate modification of the stem and cup anteversion, it can increase the risk of the dislocation and worse mechanical conditions. The in vivo prosthesis alignment should not be discussed with the angles from surgical view, but should be well planed 3 dimensionally preoperatively.
