Abstract
The success of total hip replacement (THR) is closely linked to the positioning of the acetabular component. Malalignment increases rates of dislocation, impingement, acetabular migration, pelvic osteolysis, leg length discrepancy and polyethylene wear. Many surgeons orientate the cup in the same anteversion and inclination as the inherent anatomy of the acetabulum. The transverse acetabular ligament and acetabular rim can be used as a reference points for orientating the cup this way. Low rates of dislocation have been reported using this technique. Detailed understanding of the anatomy and orientation of the acetabulum in arthritic hips is therefore very important. The aim of this study was to describe the anteversion and inclination of the inherent acetabulum in arthritic hips and to identify the number that fall out with the ‘safe zone’ of acetabular position described by Lewinnek et al. (anteversion 15°±10°; inclination 40°±10°).
A series of 65 hips, all with symptomatic osteoarthritis undergoing THR were investigated. Patients with developmental dysplastia of hip (DDH) were excluded. All patients had a navigated THR as part of their normal clinical treatment. A posterior approach to the hip was used. A commercially available non image based computer navigation system (Orthopilot BBraun Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) was used. Rigid bodies (using active trackers) were attached to pelvis and femur. Anterior pelvic plane was registered using the two anterior superior iliac spines and pubic symphysis. The femoral head dislocated and removed and the labrum and soft tissue were excised to clear floor and rim of the acetabulum. Inner size of the empty acetabulum was sized with cup trials and appropriately size trial fixed with a computer tracker was then aligned in the orientation of the natural acetabulum as defined by the acetabular rim ignoring any osteophytes. The inclination and anteversion were calculated by the software. Surgery then proceeded with guidance of the computer navigation system. The computer software defines the anatomical values of orientation, to allow comparison with radiographs these were converted to radiological values as described by Murray et al. The acetabular inclination in all hips was also measured on pre-operative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs. This was done using digital radiographs analysed with the PACS system (Kodak, Carestream PACS Client, version 10.0). Acetabular inclination was measured using as the angle between a line passing through the superior and inferior rim of the acetabulum and a line parallel to the pelvis as identified by the tear drops, using the method described by Atkinson et al.
All patients were Caucasian and had primary osteoarthritis. There were 29 males and 36 females. The average age was 68 years (SD 8). Mean anteversion was 9.3° (SD 10.3°). Anteversion for males was significantly lower than females with a mean difference of −5.5° (95%CI −10.5°,−0.5°) p = 0.033 but there was no significant difference in the number falling outside the “safe zone”. Mean inclination was 50.4° (SD 7.4°). There was no significant difference between males and females with respect to inclination angle or the number that fell outside the “safe zone”. Overall 69% of patients had a combined inclination and anteversion of the native acetabulum that fell outside the “safe zone” of Lewinnek.
Mean acetabular inclination falls out with the ‘safe zone’. This trend has been seen in a recent study of arthritic hips using CT scans which found that the average angle of inclination in both males and females was greater than the upper limit of the safe zone. This study using CT also demonstrated a statistically significant 5.5° difference between males and females in terms of anteversion. This is the same as the figure we have found in our work. Inherent acetabular orientation in arthritic hips falls out with the safe zone defined by Lewinnek in 69% of cases. When using the natural acetabular orientation as a guide for positioning implants it should therefore not be assumed this will fall with in the safe zone although the validity of safe zones itself is questionable. Variation between patients must be taken into account and the difference between males and females, particularly in terms of anteversion, should also be considered.
