Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time.

This study reviewed the revision rate of fully cemented, hybrid and cementless primary total knee replacements (TKR) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to May 2008 to determine whether there was any significant difference in the survival and reason for revision with these different types of fixation. The percentage rate of revision was calculated per 100 person years (HPY) and compared to the reason for revision, type of fixation and the patient’s age. Of the 28707 primary TKR registered, 522 underwent revision procedures requiring change of at least one component with a survival rate of 0.44 HPY (1.8%). The majority of revisions were for pain (153) followed by deep infection (133) followed by loosening of the tibial component (98). Overall the rate of tibial loosening was 0.07 HPY (0.3 %) in the cemented group vs 0.25 HPY (1%) in the cementless group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the type of fixation used for the femoral component, but there was a significant difference in the different types of fixation when revised for pain, with the uncemented tibia performing the poorest. There was no significantly difference in the younger patient (< 55 years) with respect to tibial loosening (p=0.92). Failure of the uncemented total knee replacement was due to pain and tibial loosening although the results in patients under 55 years were similar in all fixation groups. There was no difference in the fixation method of the femoral component

Abstract

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods. We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups. Results. The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively). Conclusion. Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859–866

Summary Statement

This paper is the first to compare the results of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery between cases with explained pain and cases with unexplained pain. Revision surgery for unexplained pain usually results in a less favourable outcome.

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

We designed a study to evaluate whether (1) there were differences in PROMs between different reasons for revision THA at baseline, (2) there was a different interaction effect for revision THA for all PROMs, and (3) complication and re-revision rates differ between reason for revision THA. Prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing rTHA, with a minimum of 2 years FU. The reason for revision were classified as infection, aseptic loosening, dislocation, structural failure and painful THA with uncommon causes. PROMs (EQ-5D score, Oxford hip score (OHS), VAS pain, complication and failure rates were compared between different groups. Patients with different reason for revision had improvement of PROMs’ over time. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had poorer OHS and EQ-5D than patients with other reason for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients revised due to dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups also showed a significant interaction effect over time in both OHS and EQ-5D. No PROMs significant differences between groups were observed 2 years postoperatively. Overall complications, and re-revision rates were 35.4 and 9.7% respectively. The reason for revision THA did not associate with clinical outcomes. Good outcomes were reached regardless of the reason for revision, as patients with the poorest pre-operative scores had the best improvement in PROMs over time. Complication and re-operation rates were relatively high, in line with previous reports, but did not differ between different reasons for revision THA

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the reasons for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions at a tertiary hospital over a four-year period. The study aimed to identify the primary causes of TKA revisions and shed light on the implications for patient care and outcomes. The study included 31 patients who underwent revisions after primary knee arthroplasty between January 2017 and December 2020. A retrospective approach was employed, utilizing medical records and radiological findings to identify the reasons for TKA revisions. The study excluded oncology patients to focus on non-oncologic indications for revision surgeries. Patient demographics, including age and gender, were recorded. Data analysis involved categorizing the reasons for revision based on clinical assessments and radiological evidence. Among the 31 patients included in the study, 9 were males and 22 were females. The age of the patients ranged from 43 to 81, with a median age of 65 and an interquartile range of 18.5. The primary reasons for TKA revisions were identified as aseptic loosening (10 cases) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (13 cases). Additional reasons included revision from surgitech hemicap (1 case), patella osteoarthritis (1 case), stiffness (2 cases), patella maltracking (2 cases), periprosthetic fracture (1 case), and patella resurfacing (1 case). The findings of this retrospective cohort study highlight aseptic loosening and PJI as the leading causes of TKA revisions in the examined patient population. These results emphasize the importance of optimizing surgical techniques, implant selection, and infection control measures to reduce the incidence of TKA revisions. Future research efforts should focus on preventive strategies to enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the need for revision surgeries in TKA procedures

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of revision for distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) performed as a primary procedure for native knee fractures using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR). Methods. Data from the AOANJRR were obtained for DFA performed as primary procedures for native knee fractures from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2020. Pathological fractures and revision for failed internal fixation were excluded. The five prostheses identified were the Global Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System, the Orthopaedic Salvage System, and the Segmental System. Patient demographic data (age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade) were obtained, where available. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were used to determine the rate of revision, and the reasons for revision and mortality data were examined. Results. The AOANJRR identified 153 primary DFAs performed for native knee fractures in 151 patients during the study period, with 63.3% of these (n = 97) performed within the last five years. The median follow-up was 2.1 years (interquartile range 0.8 to 4.4). The patient population was 84.8% female (n = 128), with a mean age of 76.1 years (SD 11.9). The cumulative percent revision rate at three years was 10%. The most common reason for revision was loosening, followed by infection. Patient survival at one year was 87.5%, decreasing to 72.8% at three years postoperatively. Conclusion. The use of DFA to treat native knee fractures is increasing, with 63.3% of cases performed within the last five years. While long-term data are not available, the results of this study suggest that DFA may be a reasonable option for elderly patients with native knee fractures where fixation is not feasible, or for whom prolonged non-weightbearing may be detrimental. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):894–901

Multiple joint registries have reported better implant survival for patients aged >75 years undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cemented implant combinations when compared to hybrid or uncemented implant combinations. However, there is considerable variation within these broad implant categories, and it has therefore been suggested that specific implant combinations should be compared. We analysed the most common contemporary uncemented (Corail/Pinnacle), hybrid (Exeter V40/Trident) and cemented (Exeter V40/Exeter X3) implant combinations in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) for patients aged >75 years. All THAs performed using the selected implants in the NZJR for patients aged >75 years between 1999 and 2018 were included. Demographic data, implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the NZJR, and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were recorded. 5427 THAs were included. There were 1105 implantations in the uncemented implant combination group, 3040 in the hybrid implant combination group and 1282 in the cemented implant combination group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the cemented implant combination (0.31 revisions/100 component years) and the hybrid implant combination (0.40 revisions/100 component years) but were statistically significantly higher in the uncemented implant combination (0.80/100 component years). Femoral-sided revisions were significantly greater in the uncemented implant combination group. The cemented implant and hybrid implant combinations provide equivalent survival and functional outcomes in patients aged over 75 years. Caution is advised if considering use of the uncemented implant combination in this age group, predominantly due to a higher risk of femoral sided revisions. The authors recommend comparison of individual implants rather than broad categories of implants

This study aimed to examine the changing trends in the reasons for total hip replacement (THR) revision surgery, in one country over a twenty-one year period, in order to assess whether changes in arthroplasty practices have impacted revision patterns and whether an awareness of these changes can be used to guide clinical practice and reduce future revision rates. The reason for revision THR performed between January 1999 and December 2019 was extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). The results were then grouped into seven 3-year periods to allow for clearer visualization of trends. The reasons were compared across the seven time periods and trends in prosthesis use, patient age, gender, BMI and ASA grade were also reviewed. We compared the reasons for early revision, within one year, with the overall revision rates. There were 20,740 revision THR registered of which 7665 were revisions of hips with the index procedure registered during the 21 year period. There has been a statistically significant increase in both femoral fracture (4.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) and pain (8.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) as a reason for hip revision. While dislocation has significantly decreased from 57.6% to 17.1% (p<0.001). Deep infection decreased over the first 15 years but has subsequently seen further increases over the last 6 years. Conversely both femoral and acetabular loosening increased over the first 12 years but have subsequently decreased over the last 9 years. The rate of early revisions rose from 0.86% to 1.30% of all revision procedures, with a significant rise in revision for deep infection (13-33% of all causes, p<0.001) and femoral fracture (4-18%, p<0.001), whereas revision for dislocation decreased (59-30%, p<0.001). Adjusting for age and gender femoral fracture and deep infection rates remained significant for both (p<0.05). Adjusting for age, gender and ASA was only significant for infection. The most troubling finding was the increased rate of deep infection in revision THR, with no obvious linked pattern, whereas, the reduction in revision for dislocation, aseptic femoral and acetabular loosening can be linked to the changing patterns of the use of larger femoral heads and improved bearing surfaces

Abstract. Introduction. The number of total knee replacements (TKRs) performed continues to increase and is marked in patients under the age of 60. Increased number of younger patients raises concerns about potentially increased rates of implant failure or revision. Previous studies used small cohorts with only short to medium term follow-up. This study is the largest of its kind reporting long term outcomes and clinical survivorship of patients 50 years or less undergoing TKR. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. A total of 3727 patients 50 years or less undergoing TKR between 2000 and 2019. Data was also collected for the same time period on patients aged 50–79 years undergoing TKR for comparison. Results. Mean age for under 50 years cohort at initial TKR was 45.4 years. Primary reason for TKR was osteoarthritis (3025 cases) and 321 revisions were performed. The primary reason for revision was aseptic loosening (206 cases), or infection (18 cases). Average time to revision was 5.5 years. In the 50–79 years cohort, average age was 67.5 years. Primary reason for TKR was osteoarthritis (87776 cases) and 2997 revisions were performed. Principle reason for revision was infection (256 cases), or aseptic loosening (2042 cases). Average time to revision was 4 years. Conclusion. This study suggests long-term outcome of patients aged 50 years or less undergoing TKR remain promising. Patients should be aware of relatively higher rates of aseptic loosening requiring revision in patients aged 50 years or less undergoing TKR

Aims. To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. Methods. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. Results. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Conclusion. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):338–356

Aims. The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results. In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion. The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1000–1006

Cementless fixation is an alternative to cemented unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), with several advantages over cementation. This study reports on the 15-year survival and 10-year clinical outcomes of the cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR). This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes and survival of first 693 consecutive cementless medial OUKRs implanted in New Zealand. The sixteen-year survival was 89.2%, with forty-six knees being revised. The commonest reason for revision was progression of arthritis, which occurred in twenty-three knees, followed by primary dislocation of the bearing, which occurred in nine knees. There were two bearing dislocations secondary to trauma and a ruptured ACL, and two tibial plateau fractures. There were four revisions for polyethylene wear. There were four revisions for aseptic tibial loosening, and one revision for impingement secondary to overhang of the tibial component. There was only one revision for deep infection and one revision where the indication was not stated. The mean OKS improved from 23.3 (7.4 SD) to 40.59 (SD 6.8) at a mean follow-up of sixteen years. In conclusion, the cementless OUKR is a safe and reproducible procedure with excellent sixteen-year survival and clinical outcomes

Dislocation is still one of the more common reasons for revision of THR.Registry and large institutional data has demonstrated the effectiveness of Dual Mobility articulations in reducing revision for dislocation after THR. There is little data about whether the use of dual mobility is associated with a comprised clinical functional outcome. This study aimed to ascertain whether the use of Dual Mobility articulations (DM cups) comes within a compromise to the functional of the THR procedure as measured by the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Utilising a retrospective design, patients were grouped into those with DM cups with 12 PROMs (Cohort 1) or a large data base of all THR procedures also with a complete set of 12 month PROMs (Cohort 2). The 2 groups were matched for age and gender through propensity score matching. The comparison focused on five domains of the HOOS: Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Sports and Recreation, and Quality of Life (QOL) at 6- and 12-months post-operation. 12 month PROM data suggested a convergence in scores for several domains, no uniform superiority of one articulation type over the other was found across all domains. These results suggest that both DM cup and standard articulations can effectively improve patient-reported outcomes in THR surgeries, but there are variations in recovery within each cohort that are potentially influenced by factors beyond the articulation type. This study contributes to the ongoing dialogue on optimising prosthetic selection to enhance recovery trajectories and quality of life for THR patients, emphasising the critical role of evidence-based decision-making in orthopaedic surgery

Abstract. Introduction. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) in elderly patients (>85 years) is associated with increased mortality, hospital stay and a high rate (55%) of complications. The objective was to assess PROMs in elderly patients undergoing rTKA. Methods. A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing rTKA at an arthroplasty centre from 2001–2022 were compared to a control group (aged 50–79y) matched for gender, diagnosis & surgery year. The commonest reasons for revision in elderly patients was aseptic loosening (53/100), infection (21/100) and fracture (7/100). One-year patient-reported outcome data was available for 64%. Results. 100 patients underwent rTKA with a mean age of 84 years (range 80–97 years, SD 3) compared to a matched control group of younger patients (mean age 69y). Preoperative function was poor, with a mean Oxford knee score (OKS) of 40/100 in elderly and 43/100 in younger patients (p=0.164). At one-year postop, mean OKS was comparable between elderly and young patients (81 and 84/100 respectively, p=0.289). The number of patients with severe pain at one year was also comparable (4% elderly and 7% young respectively, p=0.177). The improvement in OKS for elderly patients was sustained at three (82 95% CI 58–100, 14/100 known) and five years. Overall complication rate was 54%. 14% were dead at 1 year and 56% were dead at five-years. Conclusion. Elderly patients undergoing elective revision TKA show a mean improvement in Oxford knee score of +38 at one year. This is the same as younger patients and is sustained at three and five years

Advances in total hip and knee replacement technologies have heretofore been largely driven by corporate marketing hype with each seeming advancement accompanied by a cost increase often out in front of peer-reviewed reports documenting their efficacy or not. As example, consider the growing use of ceramic femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The question to consider is “Can an upcharge of $350 for a ceramic femoral head in primary THA be justified?” The answer to this question lies in an appreciation of whether the technology modifies the potential for costly revision arthroplasty procedures. Peer-Reviewed Laboratory & Clinical Review - According to the 2022 Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, the four leading causes of primary THA failure requiring revision are: 1.) infection, 2.) dislocation/instability, 3.) periprosthetic fracture and 4.) loosening, which constitute 87.5% of the reported reasons for revision. Focusing on these failure modes, hip simulator findings report that ceramic femoral heads dramatically reduce wear debris generation, decreasing the potential for osteolytic response leading to loosening. Further, ceramic materials enable the utilization of larger head sizes, avoiding the potential for dislocation. The overall mid- to long-term survival rate reported in the peer-reviewed, clinical literature for these bearings has exceeded 95% with virtually no osteolysis. Also, could bearing surface choice influence periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)? A study on a total of more than 10,500 primary THA procedures reported a confirmed PJI incidence of 2.4% for cobalt-chrome and 1.6% for ceramic femoral heads, suggesting that the employ of a ceramic bearing surface may also play a role in decreasing the potential for infection. Review of the clinical data available for ceramic bearings justifies that it is better to “pay me now than to pay orders of magnitude later”, if in fact a revision THA can be avoided, significantly reducing the overall financial burden to the healthcare system

The advent of modular implants aims to minimise morbidity associated with revision of hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSR) by allowing retention of the humeral stem. This systematic review aimed to summarise outcomes following its use and reasons why modular humeral stems may be revised. A systematic review of Pubmed, Medline and EMBASE was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of all patients undergoing revision of a modular hemiarthroplasty or TSA to RSR. Primary implants, glenoid revisions, surgical technique and opinion based reports were excluded. Collected data included demographics, outcomes and incidence of complications. 277 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.8 years (44-91) and 119 being female. Revisions were performed an average of 30 months (6-147) after the index procedure, with the most common reason for revision being cuff failure in 57 patients. 165 patients underwent modular conversion and 112 underwent stem revision. Of those that underwent humeral stem revision, 18 had the stem too proximal, in 15 the stem was loose, 10 was due to infection and 1 stem had significant retroversion. After a mean follow up of 37.6 months (12-91), the Constant score improved from a mean of 21.8 to 48.7. Stem revision was associated with a higher complication rate (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.82-5.39). The increased use of modular stems has reduced stem revision, however 40% of these implants still require revision due to intra-operative findings. Further large volume comparative studies between revised and maintained humeral stems post revision of modular implants can adequately inform implant innovation to further improve the stem revision rate

Iliopsoas tendonitis occurs in up to 30% of patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and is a common reason for revision. The primary purpose of this study was to validate our novel computational model for quantifying iliopsoas impingement in HRA patients using a case-controlled investigation. Secondary purpose was to compare these results with previously measured THA patients. We conducted a retrospective search in an experienced surgeon's database for HRA patients with iliopsoas tendonitis, confirmed via the active hip flexion test in supine, and control patients without iliopsoas tendonitis, resulting in two cohorts of 12 patients. The CT scans were segmented, landmarked, and used to simulate the iliopsoas impingement in supine and standing pelvic positions. Three discrete impingement values were output for each pelvic position, and the mean and maximum of these values were reported. Cup prominence was measured using a novel, nearest-neighbour algorithm. The mean cup prominence for the symptomatic cohort was 10.7mm and 5.1mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). The average standing mean impingement for the symptomatic cohort was 0.1mm and 0.0mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). The average standing maximum impingement for the symptomatic cohort was 0.2mm and 0.0mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). Impingement significantly predicted the probability of pain in logistic regression models and the simulation had a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 91%, and an AUC ROC curve of 0.95. Using a case-controlled investigation, we demonstrated that our novel simulation could detect iliopsoas impingement and differentiate between the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. Interestingly, the HRA patients demonstrated less impingement than the THA patients, despite greater cup prominence. In conclusion, this tool has the potential to be used preoperatively, to guide decisions about optimal cup placement, and postoperatively, to assist in the diagnosis of iliopsoas tendonitis