Orientation of the acetabular component influences
wear, range of movement and the incidence of dislocation after total
hip replacement (THR). During surgery, such orientation is often
referenced to the anterior pelvic plane (APP), but APP inclination
relative to the coronal plane (pelvic tilt) varies substantially
between individuals. In contrast, the change in pelvic tilt from
supine to standing (dPT) is small for nearly all individuals. Therefore,
in THR performed with the patient supine and the patient’s coronal
plane parallel to the operating table, we propose that freehand placement
of the acetabular component placement is reliable and reflects standing
(functional) cup position. We examined this hypothesis in 56 hips
in 56 patients (19 men) with a mean age of 61 years (29 to 80) using
three-dimensional CT pelvic reconstructions and standing lateral
pelvic radiographs. We found a low variability of acetabular component
placement, with 46 implants (82%) placed within a combined range
of 30° to 50° inclination and 5° to 25° anteversion. Changing from
the supine to the standing position (analysed in 47 patients) was associated
with an anteversion change <
10° in 45 patients (96%). dPT was
<
10° in 41 patients (87%). In conclusion, supine THR appears
to provide reliable freehand acetabular component placement. In
most patients a small reclination of the pelvis going from supine
to standing causes a small increase in anteversion of the acetabular component Cite this article:
The primary objective of this study was to develop a validated classification system for assessing iatrogenic bone trauma and soft-tissue injury during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary objective was to compare macroscopic bone trauma and soft-tissues injury in conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA) using this classification system. This study included 30 CO THAs versus 30 RO THAs performed by a single surgeon. Intraoperative photographs of the osseous acetabulum and periacetabular soft-tissues were obtained prior to implantation of the acetabular component, which were used to develop the proposed classification system. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities of the proposed classification system were assessed.Aims
Methods
Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA.
