The association between Femoral Tilt and impingement-free range-of-motion in total hip arthroplasty

BackgroundThere is a complex interaction among acetabular component position and antetorsion of the femoral stem in determining the maximum, impingement-free prosthetic range-of-motion (ROM) in total hip arthroplasty (THA). By insertion into the femoral canal, stems of any geometry follow the natural anterior bow of the proximal femur, creating a sagittal Femoral Tilt (FT). We sought to study the incidence of FT as measured on postoperative computed tomography scans and its influence on impingement-free ROM in THA.MethodsThe incidence of the postoperative FT was evaluated on 40 computed tomography scans after cementless THA. With the help of a three-dimensional computer model of the hip, we then systematically analyzed the effects of FT on femoral antetorsion and its influence on calculations for a ROM maximized and impingement-free compliant stem/cup orientation.ResultsThe mean postoperative FT on CT scans was 5.7° ± 1.8°. In all tests, FT significantly influenced the antetorsion values. Re-calculating the compliant component positions according to the concept of combined anteversion with and without the influence of FT revealed that the zone of compliance could differ by more than 200%. For a 7° change in FT, the impingement-free cup position differed by 4° for inclination when the same antetorsion was used.ConclusionsA range-of-motion optimized cup position in THA cannot be calculated based on antetorsion values alone. The FT has a significant impact on recommended cup positions within the concept of “femur first” or “combined anteversion”. Ignoring FT may pose an increased risk of impingement as well as dislocation.

[1]  Carsten Perka,et al.  The association between the sagittal femoral stem alignment and the resulting femoral head centre in total hip arthroplasty , 2011, International Orthopaedics.

[2]  M. Michel,et al.  MicroHip: a minimally invasive procedure for total hip replacement surgery using a modified Smith-Peterson approach. , 2007, Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja.

[3]  K. Widmer,et al.  The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[4]  R. Barrack,et al.  Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Implant Design and Orientation , 2003, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[5]  Aamer Malik,et al.  Combined Anteversion Technique for Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  John J Callaghan,et al.  Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  T. Renkawitz,et al.  Stem torsion in total hip replacement , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[8]  D. D’Lima,et al.  The Effect of the Orientation of the Acetabular and Femoral Components on the Range of Motion of the Hip at Different Head-Neck Ratios* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  Markus Tingart,et al.  Computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty: coding the next generation of navigation systems for orthopedic surgery , 2009, Expert review of medical devices.

[10]  B. Zurfluh,et al.  Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[11]  Aditya Maheshwari,et al.  Impingement with total hip replacement. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  M. Maynard,et al.  Modern technique of cemented total hip arthroplasty , 1991 .

[13]  Elizabeth R. Williams,et al.  Stress urinary incontinence: the evolution of the sling , 2008, Expert review of medical devices.

[14]  B. Jolles,et al.  Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  Fumihiro Yoshimine,et al.  The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  Y. Yoshioka,et al.  The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  S. Weinstein,et al.  The natural history and long-term follow-up of Scheuermann kyphosis. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  D. Murray The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  A. Wines,et al.  Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  K. Widmer,et al.  Containment versus impingement: finding a compromise for cup placement in total hip arthroplasty , 2007, International Orthopaedics.