The same cup orientation is classically applied to all cases of hip replacement (45° abduction, 20° anteversion). We hypothesize that this orientation must be adapted to the patient's hip range of motion. We tested this hypothesis by means of an experimental study with respect to hip range of motion, comparing the classical orientation (45° and 20°), and the orientation obtained with computer-assisted navigation. The experimental model included a hemipelvis equipped with a femur whose mobility was controlled for three configurations: stiff (60°/0°, 15°/10°, 10°/10°), average (80°/10°, 35°/30°,35°/25°), mobile (130°/30°, 50°/50°, 45°/35°). The hemipelvis and the cup holder were equipped with an electromagnetic system (Fastrack ™) to measure cup orientation. The Pleos™ navigation system (equipping the hemipelvis, the femur, and the cup holder) guided the cup orientation by detecting the positions risking impingement through a kinematic study of the hip. Nine operators each performed 18 navigation-guided implantations (162 hip abduction, anteversion, and range of movement measurements) in two series scheduled 2 months apart.Introduction
Material and Methods
1) 82 patients with THA (40 who had at least one dislocation, and 42 matched patients without instability randomly selected, 19 of these 42 underwent a profile X-ray of the pelvis before and after THA insertion) 2) and 24 standard subjects who underwent lying and weight-bearing profile X-rays of the pelvis to assess the modifications of orientation of the pelvis between these two positions.
uncoated implants should be abandoned; HA resurfacing does not reduce the rate of revision and can be associated with a higher rage of osteolysis; there is no advantage between screw fixed or press-fit cups as long as the cup has a quality resurfacing; there is no real difference between straight and anatomic pivots except that intraoperative fracture can be lower for the straight implants.