Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
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

Hip

THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PELVIC SUPPORTS ON CUP INCLINATION ANGLE USING THE POSTERIOR APPROACH

British Hip Society meeting (BHS) March 2017



Abstract

The orientation of the acetabular component is influenced by the orientation at which the surgeon implants the component and the orientation of the pelvis at the time of implantation. When operating with the patient in the lateral decubitus position, pelvic orientation can be highly variable. The goal of this study was to examine the effect of two different pelvic supports on cup orientation.

In this prospective study, 200 consecutive patients undergoing uncemented primary THA in the lateral decubitus position were included. In the control group a single support over the pubic symphysis (PS) was used. In the study group, a single support over the ipsilateral anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) was used. In every patient, the cup was inserted and the angle of the cup introducer relative to the floor (apparent operative inclination; OIa) was measured with the aid of a digital inclinometer. The radiographic inclination (RI) was measured on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs at 6 weeks postoperatively. The target zone for cup inclination was 35–45°.

In both cohorts the cups were implanted close to the target OIa with an absolute difference with the OIa of 0.86° SD 0.82 in the PS cohort and 1.03° SD 0.99 in the ASIS cohort (p=0.18). The difference between the RI and OIa was higher in the PS cohort 12.2° SD 4.1 compared with 7.5° SD 3.7 in the ASIS cohort (p<0.0001) with also a bigger variance (p=0.04) in the PS cohort. The mean RI was 38.5° SD 4.4 compared with 39.2° SD 4.1 (p=0.26) respectively. There were more cups outside the RI target zone in the PS cohort compared with the ASIS cohort (respectively 26 versus 15; p<0.05).

In this study the mean difference between the RI and OIa (the angle of the cup introducer during surgery) was significantly less when using a support over the ASIS compared with a support over the pubic symphysis. Apparently using a support over the ASIS causes less pelvic motion during surgery compared with a support over the pubic symphysis. This resulted in less variance and inclination outliers when using a tight target zone of 35–45°.


Email: