header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

GOOD VERSUS POOR RESULTS AFTER TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A COMPARISON OF IMPLANT AND ANATOMICAL PARAMETERS

International Society for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS) - 15th Annual Meeting



Abstract

Component placement and the individual's functional posture play key roles in mechanical complications and hip dysfunction after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The challenge is how to measure these. X-rays lack accuracy and CT scans increase radiation dose. A newer imaging modality, EOSTM, acquires low-dose, simultaneous, perpendicular anteroposterior and lateral views while providing a global view of the patient in a functional standing or sitting position, leading to a 3D reconstruction for parameter calculation. The purpose of the present study was to develop an approach using the EOS system to compare patients with good versus poor results after THA and to report our preliminary experiences using this technique.

A total of 35 patients were studied: 17 with good results after THA (G-THA), 18 with poor results (P-THA). The patients were operated on or referred for follow-up to a single expert surgeon, between 2001 and 2011, with a minimum follow-up of at least two years.

Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups. Acetabular version relative to the coronal plane was lower in P-THA (32°±12°) compared to G-THA (40°±9°) (p=0.02). There was a strong trend towards acetabular cup inclination relative to the APP being higher in P-THA (45°±9°, compared to 39°±7°; p=0.07). Proportions of P-THA vs. G-THA patients with cup orientation values higher or lower than 1 SD from the overall mean differed significantly and substantially between groups. All revision cases had a least four values outside 1 SD, including acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset and neck-shaft angle.

This is the first study to our knowledge to provide acetabular, pelvic and femoral parameters for these two groups and the first to provide evidence that a collection of high/low parameters may together contribute to a poor result. The results show the importance of acetabular component placement, in both inclination and version and the importance of looking at individuals, not just groups, to identify potential causes for pain and functional issues. With the EOS system, a large cohort of individuals can be studied in the functional position relatively quickly and at low dose. This could lead to patient-specific guidelines for THA planning and execution.