Hip arthroplasty aims to accurately recreate joint biomechanics. Considerable attention has been paid to vertical and horizontal offset, but femoral head centre in the anteroposterior (AP) plane has received little attention. This study investigates the accuracy of restoration of joint centre of rotation in the AP plane. Postoperative CT scans of 40 patients who underwent unilateral uncemented total hip arthroplasty were analyzed. Anteroposterior offset (APO) and femoral anteversion were measured on both the operated and non-operated sides. Sagittal tilt of the femoral stem was also measured. APO measured on axial slices was defined as the perpendicular distance between a line drawn from the anterior most point of the proximal femur (anterior reference line) to the centre of the femoral head. The anterior reference line was made parallel to the posterior condylar axis of the knee to correct for rotation.Aims
Methods
Our aim in this study was to describe a continuing review of
11 total hip arthroplasties using 22.225 mm Alumina ceramic femoral
heads on a Charnley flanged femoral component, articulating against
a silane crosslinked polyethylene. Nine patients (11 THAs) were reviewed at a mean of 27.5 years
(26 to 28) post-operatively. Outcome was assessed using the d’Aubigne
and Postel, and Charnley scores and penetration was recorded on
radiographs. In addition, the oxidation of a 29-year-old shelf-aged
acetabular component was analysed.Aims
Patients and Methods
We reviewed the literature on the currently available
choices of bearing surface in total hip replacement (THR). We present
a detailed description of the properties of articulating surfaces
review the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of
existing bearing couples. Recent technological developments in the
field of polyethylene and ceramics have altered the risk of fracture
and the rate of wear, although the use of metal-on-metal bearings has
largely fallen out of favour, owing to concerns about reactions
to metal debris. As expected, all bearing surface combinations have
advantages and disadvantages. A patient-based approach is recommended,
balancing the risks of different options against an individual’s
functional demands. Cite this article:
