Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Purpose. The ultimate goal in total hip arthroplasty is not only to relieve the pain but also to restore original hip joint biomechanics. The average femoral neck-shaft angle(FNSA) in Korean tend to have more varus pattern. Since most of conventional femoral stems have relatively high, single, fixed neck shaft angle, it's not easy to restore vertical and horizontal offset exactly especially in Korean people. This study demonstrates the advantages of dual offset(especially high-offset) stem for restoring original biomechanics of hip joint during the total hip arthroplasty in Korean. Materials and Methods. 180 hips of 155 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty using one of the standard(132°) or extended(127°) offset Accolade cementless stems were evaluated retrospectively. Offset of stem was chosen according to the patient's own FNSA in preoperative templating. In a morphometric study, neck-shaft angle of proximal femur, vertical offset and horizontal offset, abductor moment arm were measured on preoperative and postoperative both hip AP radiographs and the differences and correlation of each parameters, between operated hip and original non-operated hip which had no deformity (preoperative ipsilateral or postoperative contralateral hip), were analyzed. Results. The standard stems were used in 34 hips and extended offset stems were used in 146 hips. The FNSA of non-operated hip was an average of 129.8°(127.2°□135.8°) in standard group and mean 125.4°(122.7°□129.9°) in extended offset group. The FNSA of operated hip was an average of 131.6° and 127.1° in each group. In the statistical analysis, there was no significant difference of mean horizontal and abductor moment arm between operated hip and non-operated hip in both groups and the restoration of horizontal offset and abductor moment arm showed(p=0.217, p=0.093) significant positive correlation(R=0.870, R=0.851) to the original value. However, vertical offset was increased an average of 1.4mm in operated hip and there was statistical significance. Restoration of vertical offset showed positive correlation to original value (R=0.845). Conclusion. Dual- or multi-offset stem, especially extended offset stem can provide easy restoration of hip biomechanics and soft tissue tension without significant alteration of leg length especially in Korean with more varus femoral neck compared to Caucacian. Precise radiographic measurements of original hip and application of proper-offset stem should be taken in order to restore ideal hip biomechanics successfully and easily. A use of a proper offset stem can afford to enhance joint stability and implant longevity by improving soft-tissue tension and reducing resultant force, and it will guarantee a successful results after total hip arthroplasty in the aspect of function and longevity

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the association between knee alignment and the vertical orientation of the femoral neck in relation to the floor. This could be clinically important because changes of femoral neck orientation might alter chondral joint contact zones and joint reaction forces, potentially inducing problems like pain in pre-existing chondral degeneration. Further, the femoral neck orientation influences the ischiofemoral space and a small ischiofemoral distance can lead to impingement. We hypothesized that a valgus knee alignment is associated with a more vertical orientation of the femoral neck in standing position, compared to a varus knee. We further hypothesized that realignment surgery around the knee alters the vertical orientation of the femoral neck.

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction.

Aims

The hip’s capsular ligaments passively restrain extreme range of movement (ROM) by wrapping around the native femoral head/neck. We determined the effect of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty (DM-THA), conventional THA, and surgical approach on ligament function.

Aims. Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters. Methods. We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews for this literature search in three databases. After screening, 16 studies were included for the final analysis. Results. The studies assessed different hip conditions like labrum status, the biomechanical effect of the cam, femoral version, acetabular coverage, and the effect of rim trimming. The testing and loading conditions were also quite diverse, and this disparity limits direct comparisons between the different researches. With normal anatomy the mean contact pressures ranged from 1.54 to 4.4 MPa, and the average peak contact pressures ranged from 2 to 9.3 MPa. Labral tear or resection showed an increase in contact pressures that diminished after repair or reconstruction of the labrum. Complete cam resection also decreased the contact pressure, and acetabular rim resection of 6 mm increased the contact pressure at the acetabular base. Conclusion. To date there is no standardized methodology to access hip contact biomechanics in hip arthroscopy, or with the preservation of the periarticular soft-tissues. A tendency towards improved biomechanics (lower contact pressures) was seen with labral repair and reconstruction techniques as well as with cam correction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(12):712–721

Aims. Hip arthroplasty does not always restore normal anatomy. This is due to inaccurate surgery or lack of stem sizes. We evaluated the aptitude of four total hip arthroplasty systems to restore an anatomical and medialized hip rotation centre. Methods. Using 3D templating software in 49 CT scans of non-deformed femora, we virtually implanted: 1) small uncemented calcar-guided stems with two offset options (Optimys, Mathys), 2) uncemented straight stems with two offset options (Summit, DePuy Synthes), 3) cemented undersized stems (Exeter philosophy) with three offset options (CPT, ZimmerBiomet), and 4) cemented line-to-line stems (Kerboul philosophy) with proportional offsets (Centris, Mathys). We measured the distance between the templated and the anatomical and 5 mm medialized hip rotation centre. Results. Both rotation centres could be restored within 5 mm in 94% and 92% of cases, respectively. The cemented undersized stem performed best, combining freedom of stem positioning and a large offset range. The uncemented straight stem performed well because of its large and well-chosen offset range, and despite the need for cortical bone contact limiting stem positioning. The cemented line-to-line stem performed less well due to a small range of sizes and offsets. The uncemented calcar-guided stem performed worst, despite 24 sizes and a large and well-chosen offset range. This was attributed to the calcar curvature restricting the stem insertion depth along the femoral axis. Conclusion. In the majority of non-deformed femora, leg length, offset, and anteversion can be restored accurately with non-modular stems during 3D templating. Failure to restore hip biomechanics is mostly due to surgical inaccuracy. Small calcar guided stems offer no advantage to restore hip biomechanics compared to more traditional designs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):476–485

Aims. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year’s follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze. Results. Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA. Conclusion. In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued long-term follow up is required to assess ultimate survivorship of SRA

Introduction. The objective of our study was to determine the extent to which the quality of the biomechanical reconstruction when performing hip replacement influences gait performances. We aimed to answer the following questions: 1) Does the quality of restoration of hip biomechanics after conventional THR influence gait outcomes? (question 1), and 2) Is HR more beneficial to gait outcomes when compared with THR? (question 2). Methods. we retrospectively reviewed 52 satisfied unilateral prosthetic hip patients (40 THRs and 12 HRs) who undertook objective gait assessment at a mean follow-up of 14 months. The quality of the prosthetic hip biomechanical restoration was assessed on standing pelvic radiograph by comparison to the healthy contralateral hip. Results. We were unable to detect any statistically significant correlation between the radiographical parameters and the gait data, for THR patients. In stress conditions (inclination or declination of the ramp), the gait was more symmetric in the HR group, compared to the THR group. Discussion/Conclusions. We found that slight variations in the quality of the hip biomechanical restoration had little effect on gait outcomes of THR patients, and HR generated a more physiological gait under stress conditions than well-functioning THR

Aims. Spinopelvic characteristics influence the hip’s biomechanical behaviour. However, to date there is little knowledge defining what ‘normal’ spinopelvic characteristics are. This study aims to determine how static spinopelvic characteristics change with age and ethnicity among asymptomatic, healthy individuals. Methods. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify English studies, including ≥ 18-year-old participants, without evidence of hip or spine pathology or a history of previous surgery or interventional treatment, documenting lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI). From a total of 2,543 articles retrieved after the initial database search, 61 articles were eventually selected for data extraction. Results. When all ethnicities were combined the mean values for LL, SS, PT, and PI were: 47.4° (SD 11.0°), 35.8° (SD 7.8°), 14.0° (SD 7.2°), and 48.8° (SD 10°), respectively. LL, SS, and PT had statistically significant (p < 0.001) changes per decade at: −1.5° (SD 0.3°), −1.3° (SD 0.3°), and 1.4° (SD 0.1°). Asian populations had the largest age-dependent change in LL, SS, and PT compared to any other ethnicity per decade at: −1.3° (SD 0.3°) to −0.5° (SD 1.3°), –1.2° (SD 0.2°) to −0.3° (SD 0.3°), and 1.7° (SD 0.2°) versus 1.1° (SD 0.1°), respectively. Conclusion. Ageing alters the orientation between the spine and pelvis, causing LL, SS, and PT to modify their orientations in a compensatory mechanism to maintain sagittal alignment for balance when standing. Asian populations have the largest degree of age-dependent change to their spinopelvic parameters compared to any other ethnicity, likely due to their lower PI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):231–244

Introduction and Objective. A proper restoration of hip biomechanics is fundamental to achieve satisfactory outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). A global hip offset (GO) postoperatively reduction of more than 5 mm was known to impair hip functionality after THA. This study aimed to verify the restoration of the GO radiographic parameter after primary THA by the use of a cementless femoral stem available in three different offset options without length changing. Materials and Methods. From a consecutive series of 201 patients (201 hips) underwent primary cementless THA in our centre with a minimum 3-year follow up, 80 patients (80 hips) were available for complete radiographic evaluation for GO and limb length (LL) and clinical evaluation with Harris hip score (HHS). All patients received the same femoral stem with three different offset options (option A with – 5 mm offset, option B and option C with + 5 mm offset, constant for each sizes) without changing stem length. Results. Mean GO significantly increased by + 3 mm (P < 0.05) and mean LL significantly decreased by + 5 mm (P < 0.05) after surgery, meaning that postoperatively the limb length of the operated side increased by + 5 mm. HHS significantly improved from 56.3 points preoperatively to 95.8 postoperatively (P < 0.001). Offset option A was used in 1 hip (1%), B in 59 hips (74%) and C in 20 hips (25%). Conclusions. The femur is lateralized with a mean of + 5mm after surgery than, the native anatomy, whatever type of stem was used. Thus, the use of this 3-offset options femoral stem is effective in restoring the native biomechanical hip parameters as GO, even if 2 offset options were considered sufficient to restore GO

Hip joint biomechanics can be altered by abnormal morphology of the acetabulum and/or femur. This may affect load distribution and contact stresses on the articular surfaces, hence, leading to damage and degradation of the tissue. Experimental hip joint simulators have been used to assess tribology of total hip replacements and recently methods further developed to assess the natural hip joint mechanics. The aim of this study was to evaluate articular surfaces of human cadaveric joints following prolonged experimental simulation under a standard gait cycle. Four cadaveric male right hips (mean age = 62 years) were dissected, the joint disarticulated and capsule removed. The acetabulum and femoral head were mounted in an anatomical hip simulator (Simulation Solutions, UK). A simplified twin peak gait cycle (peak load of 3kN) was applied. Hips were submerged in Ringers solution (0.04% sodium azide) and testing conducted at 1 Hertz for 32 hours (115,200 cycles). Soft tissue degradation was recorded using photogrammetry at intervals throughout testing. All four hips were successfully tested. Prior to simulation, two samples exhibited articular surface degradation and one had a minor scalpel cut and a small area of cartilage delamination. The pre-simulation damage got slightly worse as the simulation continued but no new areas of damage were detected upon inspection. The samples without surface degradation, showed no damage during testing and the labral sealing effect was more obvious in these samples. The fact that no new areas of damage were detected after long simulations, indicates that the loading conditions and positioning of the sample were appropriate, so the simulation can be used as a control to compare mechanical degradation of the natural hip when provoked abnormal conditions or labral tissue repairs are simulated

Robotic assisted surgery aims to reduce surgical errors in implant positioning and better restore native hip biomechanics compared to conventional techniques for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual THA versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, cup inclination, cup version, and leg-length correction. This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the minimally-invasive posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recoded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. Patients in both treatment groups were well-matched for age, gender, body mass index, laterality of surgery, and ASA scores. Interclass correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84 – 0.95) for intra-observer agreement and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.94) for inter-observer agreement in all study outcomes. Robotic THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native horizontal (p<0.001) and vertical (p<0.001) centres of rotation, and improved preservation of the patient's native combined offset (P<0.001) compared to conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup within the combined safe zones of inclination and anteversion described by Lewinnek et al (p=0.02) and Callanan et al (p=0.01) compared to conventional THA (figures 1–2). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p=0.10). Robotic-arm assisted THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native centre of rotation, better preservation of the combined offset, and more precise acetabular cup positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared to conventional manual THA. Robotic-arm assisted THA enables improved preservation of native hip biomechanics compared to conventional manual THA. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly: . fsh@fareshaddad.net

Restoring native hip biomechanics is crucial to the success of THA. This is reflected both in terms of complications after surgery such as instability, leg length inequality, pain and limp; and in terms of patient satisfaction. The challenge that remains is that of achieving optimal implant sizing and positioning so as to restore, as closely as possible, the native hip biomechanics specific to the hip joint being replaced. This would optimise function and reduce complications, particularly, instability. (Mirza et al., 2010). Ideally, this skill should also be reproducible irrespective of the surgeon's experience, volume of surgery and learning curve. The general consensus is that the most substantial limiting factor in a THA is the surgeon's performance and as a result, human errors and unintended complications are not completely avoidable (Tarwala and Dorr, 2011). The more challenging aspects include acetabular component version, sizing and femoral component sizing, offset and position in the femoral canal. This variability has led to interest in technologies for planning THA, and technologies that help in the execution of the procedure. Advances in surgical technology have led to the development of computer navigation and robotic systems, which assist in pre-operative planning and optimise intra-operative implant positioning. The evolution of surgical technology in lower limb arthroplasty has led to the development of computer navigation and robotics, which are designed to minimise human error and improve implant positioning compared to pre-operative templating using plain radiographs. It is now possible to use pre-operative computerised tomography (image-based navigation) and/or anatomical landmarks (non-imaged-based navigation) to create three-dimensional images of each patient's unique anatomy. These reconstructions are then used to guide bone resection, implant positioning and lower limb alignment. The second-generation RIO Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopaedic system (MAKO Surgical) uses pre-operative computerised tomography to build a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the patient's hip. The surgeon can then plan and execute optimal sizing and positioning of the prostheses to achieve the required bone coverage, minimise bone resection, restore joint anatomy and restore lower limb biomechanics. The MAKO robotic software processes this information to calculate the volume of bone requiring resection and creates a three-dimensional haptic window for the RIO-robotic arm to resect. The RIO-robotic arm has tactile and audio feedback to resect bone to a high degree of accuracy and preserve as much bone stock as possible. We have used this technology in the hip to accurately reproduce the anteversion, closure and center of rotation that was planned for each hip. Whilst the precise safe target varies from patient to patient, the ability to reproduce native biomechanics, to gain fixation as planned and to get almost perfect length and offset are a great advantage. Complications such as instability and leg length inequality are thus dramatically reduced

Introduction. Natural population variation in femoral morphology results in a large range of offsets, anteversion angles and lengths. During total hip arthroplasty, accurate restoration of hip biomechanics is essential to achieve good functional results. One option is to restore the anatomic hip rotation center. Alternatively, medializing the rotation center and compensating by increasing the femoral offset, reduces acetabular contact forces and increases the abductor lever arm. We investigated the ability of two cemented stem systems to restore hip biomechanics in an anatomic and medialized way. We compared an undersized “Exeter-type” of stem with three offset options and 18 sizes (CPT, Zimmer), to a line-to-line “Kerboul-type” of stem with proportional offset and 12 sizes (Centris, Mathys). Methods. Thirty CT scans of whole femora were segmented and the hip rotation center, proximal femoral axis and femoral length were determined with Mimics and 3-matic (Materialise). Using scripting functionality in the software, CAD design files of both stems were automatically sized and aligned along the proximal femoral axis to restore an anatomical and a 5 mm medialized hip rotation center. Stem size and position could be fine-tuned manually. The maximum distances between the prosthetic (PRC), the anatomic (ARC) and the medialized hip rotation center (MRC) were calculated (Fig. 1). Variations in femoral offset (ΔFO), anteroposterior (ΔAP) and proximodistal distance (ΔPD) were analyzed. Finally, the number of cases where the hip rotation center could be restored within 5 mm was reported. Results. Both implants allowed restoring the ARC accurately (mean distance PRC-ARC: CPT 0.97±0.88 mm, Centris 1.66±1.59 mm; mean difference ΔFO: CPT 0.09±0.19 mm, Centris 0.11±0.29 mm; mean difference ΔAP: CPT 0.12±1.22°, Centris 0.27±1.78 mm, mean difference ΔPD: CPT 0.04±0.44 mm, Centris 0.49±1.35 mm). The CPT stem allowed restoring the PRC within 5 mm of the ARC in all cases (max. 4.31 mm), whereas the Centris stem achieved this in only 28/30 hips (max. 6.72 mm) (Fig. 2). Aiming for a MRC was less satisfactory with both stems (mean distance PRC-MRC: CPT 1.38±1.63 mm, Centris 3.61±2.73 mm; mean difference ΔFO: CPT 0.09±0.10 mm, Centris 0.06±0.35 mm; mean difference ΔAP: CPT 0.17±2.02 mm, Centris 2.58±2.68 mm, mean difference ΔDP; CPT 0.28±0.67 mm, Centris 1.98±1.66 mm). The CPT stem allowed restoring the PRC within 5 mm of the MRC in 29/30 cases (max. 8.09 mm), whereas the Centris stem achieved this in only 25/30 cases (max. 11.15 mm) (Fig. 3). Discussion. Although both stem systems allowed restoring hip biomechanics accurately in most cases, the CPT system was superior to the Centris stem for achieving both ARC and MRC. This could be explained by more implant sizes (18 vs. 12) and undersized stems offering more freedom to correct version. Although medializing the hip rotation center offers biomechanical advantages, both stems had more difficulties achieving this. In some cases, differences between aimed and planned rotation centers were close to 1 cm which might negatively impact on clinical outcome. As such, to avoid suboptimal reconstructions with the available implants, templating is mandatory especially when aiming at a medialized reconstruction strategy

The literature indicates that femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients do not return to the level of controls (CTRL) following surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare hip biomechanics during stair climbing tasks in FAI patients before and two years after undergoing corrective surgery against healthy controls (CTRL). A total of 27 participants were included in this study. All participants underwent CT imaging at the local hospital, followed by three-dimensional motion analysis done at the human motion biomechanics laboratory at the local university. Participants who presented a cam deformity >50.5° in the oblique-axial or >60° in the radial planes, respectively, and who had a positive impingement test were placed in the FAI group (n=11, age=34.1±7.4 years, BMI=25.4±2.7 kg/m2). The remaining participants had no cam deformity and negative impingement test and were placed in the CTRL group (n=16, age=33.2±6.4 years, BMI=26.3±3.2 kg/m2). The CTRL group completed the biomechanics protocol once, whereas the FAI group completed the protocol twice, once prior to undergoing corrective surgery for the cam FAI, and the second time at approximately two years following surgery. At the human motion biomechanics laboratory, participants were outfitted with 45 retroreflective markers placed according to the UOMAM marker set. Participants completed five trials of stairs task on a three step instrumented stair case to measure ground reaction forces while 10 Vicon MX-13 cameras recorded the marker trajectories. Data was processed using Nexus software and divided into stair ascent and stair descent tasks. The trials were imported into custom written MatLab software to extract peak pelvis and hip kinematics and hip kinetic variables. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine significant (p < 0.05) differences between the groups. No significant differences occurred during the stair descent task between any of the groups. During the stair ascent task, the CTRL group had significantly greater peak hip flexion angle (Pre-Op=58±7.1°, Post-Op=58.1±6.6°, CTRL=64.1±5.1°) and sagittal hip range of motion (ROM) (Pre-Op=56.7±6.7°, Post-Op=56.3±5.5°, CTRL=61.7±4.2°) than both the pre- and post-operative groups. Pre-operatively, the FAI group had significantly less peak hip adduction angle (Pre-Op=2±4.5°, Post-Op=3.4±4.4°, CTRL=5.5±3.7°) and hip frontal ROM (Pre-Op=9.9±3.4°, Post-Op=11.9±5.4°, CTRL=13.4±2.5°) compared to the CTRL group. No significant differences occurred in the kinetic variables. Our findings are in line with the Rylander and colleagues (2013) who also found that hip sagittal ROM did not improve following corrective surgery. Their study included a mix of cam and pincer-type FAI, and had a mean follow-up of approximately one year. Our cohort included only cam FAI and they had a mean follow-up of approximately two years, indicating with the extra year, the patients still did not show sagittal hip kinematics improvement. In the frontal plane, there was no significant difference between the post-op and the CTRL, indicating that the postoperative FAI reached the level of the CTRLs. This is in line with recent work that indicates a more medialized hip contact force vector following surgery, suggesting better hip stabilization

Introduction. Golf is a recommended form of physical activity for older adults. However, clinicians have no evidence-based research regarding the demands on the hips of older adults during golf. The purpose of our in vivoobservational study was to quantify the hip biomechanics of older adult golfers. Methods. Seventeen healthy older male golfers(62.2±8.8 years, handicap 8.7±4.9) free from orthopaedic injuries and surgeries volunteered for participation in this IRB-approved study. A 10-camera motion capture system recorded kinematics, and two force plates collected kinetic data. Participants performed eight shots using their own driver. Data processing was performed in Visual3D. The overall range of excursion and three-dimensional net joint moments normalized to body weight for the lead and trail hips were extracted. Results. Kinematics (mean excursion and range) of lead and trail hips in all three planes during a golf swing are presented in Table 1. The trail leg experiences higher excursion in the sagittal plane, while the lead leg has more frontal plane movement. Average maximum net joint moments of the lead and trail hips were 1.2 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3 Nm/kg, respectively. Conclusion. Our study is the first to quantify the kinematics and kinetics of the hip joint in healthy older male golfers. While the golf swing is often considered to be a predominant transverse plane motion, our results indicate considerable excursion at the hip joints in all three planes. Furthermore, the trail leg experiences 40% greater loading than the lead leg throughout the swing, suggesting that the trail leg may have a larger impact on golf performance while also leaving it more susceptible to overuse injury. For clinicians with patients who experience osteoarthritis of the hip or who have recently undergone hip surgery, this study may provide novel insight into the demands of golf on the hips. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Over the past 15 years Anterior Approach (AA) THA has shown a dramatic increase in adoption by surgeons (over 30%) and choice by patients with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of hips performed with traditional posterior and lateral approaches. I began AA in 1996 in order to solve the classic problems of potential dislocation associated with posterior approach and potential abductor weakness associated with the lateral (Harding) approach. Surgeon education on AA began in 2013 and has accelerated since. AA is usually performed with the aid of an orthopaedic table which facilitates exposure though many cases are also performed on a standard operating table. Intraoperative image intensification has provided real-time feedback and accuracy for cup position leg length and offset and is facilitated by the supine position and a radiolucent orthopaedic table, however, AA can be performed without it. Earlier functional recovery with decreased post-operative pain is the best documented benefit of AA as well as decreased dislocation rate. My own point of view is to take advantage of a switch to AA to improve more than your surgical approach. Improve also hip biomechanics, cup position, ease of surgery, bone preparation, and soft tissue handling. A proven and repeatable technique and use of available technologies will facilitate this

Background. Modularity in total hip replacement(THR) enables precise recreation of native hip biomechanics. However, there have been concerns about raised metal ion levels with increased number of interfaces. We present the 3 year results of ML taper with Kinectiv technology(MLKT), a modular neck uncemented stem. This system has modular neck options, but has only one [0] head in various diameters. Methods. 97 hips in 97 patients with a MLKT stem and Continuum socket were included in this prospective study. Harris hip score, Oxford hip scores (HHS and OHS) and yearly blood Cobalt(Co), Chromium(Cr) and Titanium(Ti) were recorded. The primary end point was revision for any reason. Paired t- test was used to assess improvement in functional scores. Results. The mean age was 62.1±8.7 years. The mean follow-up was 3.75±0.67years. The mean HHS improved from 45.8±5.1 to 92.6±3.1(p<0.001) and the mean OHS improved form 17.59±4.71 to 43.1±2.2(p<0.001). One hip was revised for deep infection at 2.6 years. The mean Co, Cr and Ti levels at 3 years were 18.45,19.62 and 36.47 nmol/l respectively. The survivorship of the cohort at a minimum follow-up of 3 years was 98.7%. Conclusion. Our study suggests that despite the presence of an additional interface between the neck and the stem, the MLKT stem does not result in increased metal ion levels or higher failure rate. This is a prospective and consecutive series of patients with complete radiological and functional follow-up. The MLKT stem has good functional results with no concerns about raised metal ion levels in the short term

The acetabular labrum is a soft-tissue structure which lines the acetabular rim of the hip joint. Its role in hip joint biomechanics and joint health has been of particular interest over the past decade. In normal hip joint biomechanics, the labrum is crucial in retaining a layer of pressurised intra-articular fluid for joint lubrication and load support/distribution. Its seal around the femoral head is further regarded as a contributing to hip stability through its suction effect. The labrum itself is also important in increasing contact area thereby reducing contact stress. Given the labrum’s role in normal hip joint biomechanics, surgical techniques for managing labral damage are continuously evolving as our understanding of its anatomy and function continue to progress. The current paper aims to review the anatomy and biomechanical function of the labrum and how they are affected by differing surgical techniques. Take home message: The acetabular labrum plays a critical role in hip function and maintaining and restoring its function during surgical intervention remain an essential goal. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:730–5