Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 10 | Pages 639 - 649
19 Oct 2021
Bergiers S Hothi H Henckel J Di Laura A Belzunce M Skinner J Hart A

Aims

Acetabular edge-loading was a cause of increased wear rates in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, ultimately contributing to their failure. Although such wear patterns have been regularly reported in retrieval analyses, this study aimed to determine their in vivo location and investigate their relationship with acetabular component positioning.

Methods

3D CT imaging was combined with a recently validated method of mapping bearing surface wear in retrieved hip implants. The asymmetrical stabilizing fins of Birmingham hip replacements (BHRs) allowed the co-registration of their acetabular wear maps and their computational models, segmented from CT scans. The in vivo location of edge-wear was measured within a standardized coordinate system, defined using the anterior pelvic plane.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 24 - 24
1 Jul 2020
Di Laura A Henckel J Belzunce M Hothi H Hart A
Full Access

Introduction

The achieved anteversion of uncemented stems is to a large extent limited by the internal anatomy of the bone. A better understanding of this has recently become an unmet need because of the increased use of uncemented stems.

We aimed to assess plan compliance in six degrees of freedom to evaluate the accuracy of PSI and guides for stem positioning in primary THAs.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively collected 3D plans generated from preoperative CTs of 30 consecutive THAs (17 left and 13 right hips), in 29 patients with OA, consisting of 16 males and 13 females (median age 68 years, range 46–83 years). A single CT-based planning system and cementless type of implant were used.

Post operatively, all patients had a CT scan which was reconstructed using state-of-the-art software solution: the plan and CT reconstruction models were

Outcome measures: 1) discrepancy between planned and achieved stem orientation angles Fig.2&3; 2) clinical outcome.