To evaluate how abnormal proximal femoral anatomy affects different femoral version measurements in young patients with hip pain. First, femoral version was measured in 50 hips of symptomatic consecutively selected patients with hip pain (mean age 20 years (SD 6), 60% (n = 25) females) on preoperative CT scans using different measurement methods: Lee et al, Reikerås et al, Tomczak et al, and Murphy et al. Neck-shaft angle (NSA) and α angle were measured on coronal and radial CT images. Second, CT scans from three patients with femoral retroversion, normal femoral version, and anteversion were used to create 3D femur models, which were manipulated to generate models with different NSAs and different cam lesions, resulting in eight models per patient. Femoral version measurements were repeated on manipulated femora.Aims
Methods
The impact of a diaphyseal femoral deformity on knee alignment varies according to its severity and localization. The aims of this study were to determine a method of assessing the impact of diaphyseal femoral deformities on knee alignment for the varus knee, and to evaluate the reliability and the reproducibility of this method in a large cohort of osteoarthritic patients. All patients who underwent a knee arthroplasty from 2019 to 2021 were included. Exclusion criteria were genu valgus, flexion contracture (> 5°), previous femoral osteotomy or fracture, total hip arthroplasty, and femoral rotational disorder. A total of 205 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 62.2 years (SD 8.4). The mean BMI was 33.1 kg/m2 (SD 5.5). The radiological measurements were performed twice by two independent reviewers, and included hip knee ankle (HKA) angle, mechanical medial distal femoral angle (mMDFA), anatomical medial distal femoral angle (aMDFA), femoral neck shaft angle (NSA), femoral bowing angle (FBow), the distance between the knee centre and the top of the FBow (DK), and the angle representing the FBow impact on the knee (C’KS angle).Aims
Methods
The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems. An implant company’s independent 3D shoulder arthroplasty planning software (mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0, module v. 2.1.84.173.43) was used to determine the jump height of standard and constrained liners of different sizes (radius of curvature) of all available companies. The obtained parameters were used to calculate the stability ratio (degree of constraint) and angle of coverage (degree of glenosphere coverage by liner) of the different systems. Measurements were independently performed by two raters, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to perform a reliability analysis. Additionally, measurements were compared with parameters provided by the companies themselves, when available, to ensure validity of the software-derived measurements.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
