Aims

The surgical target for optimal implant positioning in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty remains the subject of ongoing discussion. One of the proposed targets is to recreate the knee’s functional behaviour as per its pre-diseased state. The aim of this study was to optimize implant positioning, starting from mechanical alignment (MA), toward restoring the pre-diseased status, including ligament strain and kinematic patterns, in a patient population.

Aims

Appropriate acetabular component placement has been proposed for prevention of postoperative dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Manual placements often cause outliers in spite of attempts to insert the component within the intended safe zone; therefore, some surgeons routinely evaluate intraoperative pelvic radiographs to exclude excessive acetabular component malposition. However, their evaluation is often ambiguous in case of the tilted or rotated pelvic position. The purpose of this study was to develop the computational analysis to digitalize the acetabular component orientation regardless of the pelvic tilt or rotation.

Introduction. Optimal implant position is critical to hip stability after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Recent literature points out the importance of the evaluation of pelvic position to optimize cup implantation. The concept of Functional Combined Anteversion (FCA), the sum of acetabular/cup anteversion and femoral/stem neck anteversion in the horizontal plane, can be used to plan and control the setting of a THA in standing position. The main purpose of this preliminary study is to evaluate the difference between the combined anteversion before and after THA in weight-bearing standing position using EOS 3D reconstructions. A simultaneous analysis of the preoperative lumbo pelvic parameters has been performed to investigate their potential influence on the post-operative reciprocal femoro-acetabular adaptation. Material and Methods. 66 patients were enrolled (unilateral primary THAs). The same mini-invasive anterolateral approach was performed in a lateral decubitus for all cases. None of the patients had any postoperative complications. For each case, EOS full-body radiographs were performed in a standing position before and after unilateral THA. A software prototype was used to assess pelvic parameters (sacral slope, pelvic version, pelvic incidence), acetabular / cup anteversion, femoral /stem neck anteversion and combined anteversion in the patient horizontal functional plane (the frontal reference was defined as the vertical plane passing through centers of the acetabula or cups). Sub-analysis was made, grouping the sample by pelvic incidence (<55°, 55°–65°, >65°) and by pre-operative sacral slope in standing position (<35°, 35°–45°, >45°). Paired t-test was used to compare differences between preoperative and postoperative parameters within each subgroup. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results. In the full sample, mean FCA increased postoperatively by 9,3° (39,5° vs 30,2°; p<0.05). In groups with sacral slope < 35° and sacral slope > 45°, postoperative combined anteversion increased significantly by 11,7° and 12,9°, respectively. In the group with pelvic incidence > 65°, postoperative combined anteversion increased significantly by 14,4°. There was no significant change of combined anteversion in the remaining subgroups. Discussion. In this series the FCA increased after THA, particularly in patients with a low or high sacral slope on the pre-operative evaluation in standing position. This may be related to a greater difficulty for the surgeon in anticipating the postoperative standing orientation of the pelvis in these patients, as they were standardly oriented during surgery (lateral decubitus). Interestingly the combined anteversion was also increased in patients with a high pelvic incidence that is commonly associated with a high sacral slope. Conclusion. Post-operative increase of anatomical cumulative anteversion has been previously reported using anterior approach. The FCA concept based on EOS 3D reconstructions brings new informations about the reciprocal femoro-acetabular adaptation in standing position. Differences found in combined anteversion before and after the surgery show that a special interest should be given to patients with high pelvic incidence and low or high sacral slope, to optimize THA orientation in standing position

Introduction. Optimal implant position is the important factor in the hip stability after THA. Both the acetabular and femoral implants are placed in anteversion. While most hip dislocations occur either in standing position or when the hip is flexed, preoperative hip anatomy and postoperative implants position are commonly measured in supine position with CT scan. The isolated and combined anteversions of femoral and acetabular components have been reported in the literature. The conclusions are questionable as the reference planes are not consistent: femoral anteversion is measured according to the distal femoral condyles plane (DFCP) and acetabulum orientation in the anterior pelvic plane (APP)). The EOS imaging system allows combined measurements for standing position in the “anatomical” reference plane or anterior pelvic plane (APP) or in the patient “functional” plane (PFP) defined as the horizontal plane passing through both femoral heads. The femoral anteversion can also be measured conventionally according to the DFCP. The objective of the study was to determine the preoperative and postoperative acetabular, femoral and combined hip anteversions, sacral slope, pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt in patients who undergo primary THA. Material and Methods. The preoperative and postoperative 3D EOS images were assessed in 62 patients (66 hips). None of these patients had spine or lower extremity surgery other than THA surgery in between the 2 EOS assessments. None had dislocation within the follow up time period. Results. Pelvic values. The preoperative sacral slope was 42.4°(11° to 76°) as compared to the postoperative sacral slope (40.3°, −4° to 64°)(p=0.014). The preoperative pelvic tilt was 15.3° (−10° to 44°) as compared to the postoperative tilt (17.2°, −6° to 47°)(p=0.008). The preoperative pelvic incidence was 57.7°(34° to 93°) and globally unchanged as compared to the postoperative incidence (57.5°, 33° to 79°)(p=0.8). Acetabular values. Surgeons increased the anteversion according to the APP by an average of 12.6°(−13° to 53°)(p<0.001). Acetabular anteversion was increased by 14.3° in the PFP (−11° to 51°)(p<0.001). Femoral values. In the DFCP, preoperative neck anteversion was decreased postoperatively by an average of −3,2°(−48° to 33°)(p=0,0942). In the PFP, preoperative neck anteversion was decreased postoperatively by an average of −6,3°(−47° to 17°)(p<0,001). Combined values. According to the classical methods (acetabular orientation in the APP and femoral anteversion in the DFCP), mean preoperative combined anteversion was 36.1° (4° to 86°) and was increased postoperatively to 45.5°(−12° to 98°)(p=0.0003). According to the PFP, mean preoperative combined anteversion was 30,7°(5° to 68°) and was increased postoperatively to 38,8°(−10° to 72°)(p=0,0001). Conclusion. This study reports two methods for the measurement of acetabular and femoral anteversion, “anatomical” according to the APP and DFCP and “functional” according to the PFP. Surgeons tend to increase the anteversion of the acetabular implant and to decrease femoral anteversion during the surgery. The trend is the same for postoperative evolution of values using the “anatomical” or the “functional” methods but numerical discrepancies are explained by significant APP orientation changes. The assessment of the true combined anteversion provides new perspectives to optimize our understanding of THA stability and function