Abstract
Introduction
The posterior condylar axis of the distal femur is the common reference used to describe femoral anteversion. In the context of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA), this reference can be used to define the native femoral anteversion, as well as the anteversion of the stem. However, these measurements are fixed to a femoral reference. The authors propose that the functional position of the proximal femur must be considered, as well as the functional relationship between stem and cup (combined anteversion) when considering the clinical implications of stem anteversion. This study investigates the post-operative differences between anatomically-referenced and functionally-referenced stem and combined anteversion in the supine and standing positions.
Method
18 patients undergoing pre-operative analysis with the Trinity OPS® planning (Optimized Ortho, Sydney Australia, a division of Corin, UK) were recruited for post-operative assessment. Anatomic and functional stem anteversion in both the supine and standing positions were determined. The anatomic anteversion was measured from CT and referenced to the posterior condyles. The supine functional anteversion was measured from CT and referenced to the coronal plane. The standing functional anteversion was measured to the coronal plane when standing by performing a 3D/2D registration of the implants to a weight-bearing AP X-ray. Further, functional acetabular anteversion was captured to determine combined functional anteversion in the supine and standing positions.
Results
The average anatomical stem anteversion was 9.9° (6.7° to 13.0°). In all cases, the anatomical stem anteversion was different than the measured functional stem anteversion in both the supine and standing positions. The functional femoral anteversion decreased from supine to stand by an average of 7.1° (4.9°−9.2°), suggesting more internal rotation of the femurs when weight-bearing.
In all patients, the pelvis rotated posteriorly in the sagittal plane from supine to standing, increasing the functional acetabular anteversion by a mean of 5.1°.
Conclusions
-
Anatomic stem anteversion differs significantly from functional stem anteversion in both the supine and standing positions, as a consequence of the patient specific differences in internal/external rotation of the femur in the functional postures.
-
In the same way that the Anterior Pelvic Plane is now widely recognized as an inappropriate reference for cup orientation due to variation in sagittal pelvic tilt, referencing the femoral stem anteversion to the native anatomy (distal femur) maybe also be misleading and not provide a suitable description of the functional anteversion of the stem.
-
This has implications for determining optimal combined alignment in THA.
