Abstract
Introduction:
Wear, wear-associated osteolysis, and instability are the most common reasons for revision total hip arthroplasty. These failures have been shown to be associated with acetabular component malpositioning. However, optimal acetabular component orientation on a patient-specific basis is currently unknown. The current study uses CT to assess acetabular orientation in a group of unstable hips as compared to a control group of stable hips.
Methods:
Our institutional database of CT studies performed in the region of the hip beginning in February of 1998 (41,975 CT studies) was compared against our institutional database of revision total hip arthroplasties beginning in August of 2003 (2262 Revision THA) to identify CT studies of any hip treated for recurrent instability by revision of the acetabular component. Twenty hips in 20 patients with suitable CT studies were identified for the study group. Our control group consisted of 99 hips in 93 patients who had CT studies either for computer-assisted surgery on the contralateral side or for assessment of osteolysis. Using the CT data, the AP plane (APP) was defined, supine pelvic tilt was measured, and cup orientation was calculated by fitting a best fit plane to 6 points on the rim of the acetabular component. Cup orientation was calculated in degrees of operative anteversion and operative inclination according to the definitions of Murray. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position1 were calculated.
Results:
The study group of 20 hips treated for instability showed a mean operative anteversion of 30.3 degrees (SD 17.6, range 1.0 to 58.1), a mean operative inclination of 35.9 degrees (SD 8.4, range 25.1 to 55.9), and a mean tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of 29.7 (SD 14.2, range 1.8 to 53). The control group of 99 hips showed a mean operative anteversion of 30.5 degrees (SD 10.7, range −1.9 to 57.5), a mean operative inclination of 37.7 degrees (SD 8.0, range 18.4 to 68.1), and a mean tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of 26.7 (SD 10.8, range −0.2 to 47.3). Most interestingly. all of the hips treated for instability had an operative anteversion of either 22.9 degrees or less or 38.67 degrees or more of tilt-adjusted operative inclination of either 30.5 degrees or less or 55.9 degrees or more, or both. The center of the safe zone in this study is 30.7 of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and 43.2 degrees of operative inclination (Figure 1). There was no discernable safe zone in the non tilt-adjusted group.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Most conventionally placed acetabular components are malpositioned but not all malpositioned acetabular components are associated with dislocation. The hip dislocation safe zone appears to be narrower in operative anteversion than in operative inclination. Improved methods of improving the accuracy and reliability of acetabular component placement may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications.
