Early Radiographic Loosening Findings of the Hydrocyapatite-coated Acetabular Cup

AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess a large, single-surgeon dataset of uncemented total hip arthroplasties that had been templated using software. This assessment compared preoperative templated predictions with what was implanted with regard to (1) femoral prosthesis size and (2) acetabular cup size. The operation notes for two types of uncemented total hip arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon between January 9, 2008, and March 21, 2019, were assessed. The data were refined so that only those that were fully templated on a correctly calibrated pelvic radiograph were included. This provided a total of 153 cases. The predicted software template was compared with actual implanted component sizes. With regard to the femoral stems, the templating software was exactly correct in 45.75% of cases and was accurate to within one size in 87.59% of cases. With regard to the acetabular component, the templating software was exactly correct in 52.94% of cases and was accurate to within one size (2 mm) in 86.94% of cases. Templating software offers an accurate prediction of the size of uncemented femoral and acetabular components. In addition, the benefits of templating include cognitive rehearsal, insight into potentially challenging aspects of surgery, and highlighting intraoperative issues where there is a large intraoperative deviation from what is templated. This study demonstrates the congruence and reproducibility of templating software when compared with other smaller studies performed in the literature.

Download Full-text

Accuracy of cup placement in total hip arthroplasty by means of a mechanical positioning device: a comprehensive cadaveric 3d analysis of 16 specimens

Hip International ◽

10.1177/1120700019874822 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 112070001987482

Author(s):

Arthur J Kievit ◽

Johannes G G Dobbe ◽

Wouter H Mallee ◽

Leendert Blankevoort ◽

Geert J Streekstra ◽

...

Keyword(s):

3D Models ◽

Safe Zone ◽

3D Analysis ◽

Anterior Pelvic Plane ◽

Mechanical Device ◽

Acetabular Cup ◽

Anteversion Angle ◽

Positioning Device ◽

The Mean ◽

Safe Zones

Introduction: We tested whether a mechanical device (such as Hipsecure) to pinpoint the anterior pelvic plane (APP) as a guide can improve acetabular cup placement. To assess accuracy we asked: (1) is the APP an effective guide to position acetabular cup placement within acceptable ° of divergence from the optimal 40° inclination and 15° anteversion; (2) could a mechanical device increase the number of acetabular cup placements within Lewinnek’s safe zone (i.e. inclination 30° to 50°; anteversion 5° to 25°)? Methods: 16 cadaveric specimens were used to assess the 3D surgical success of using a mechanical device APP to guide acetabular cup placement along the APP. We used the Hipsecure mechanical device to implant acetabular cups at 40° inclination and 15° anteversion. Subequently, all cadaveric specimens with implants were scanned with a CT and 3D models were created of the pelvis and acetabular cups to assess the outcome in terms of Lewinnek’s safe zones. Results: The mean inclination of the 16 implants was 40.6° (95% CI, 37.7–43.4) and the mean anteversion angle was 13.4° (95% CI, 10.7–16.1). All 16 cup placements were within Lewinnek’s safe zone for inclination (between 30° and 50°) and all but 2 were within Lewinnek’s safe zone for anteversion (between 5° and 25°). Conclusion: In cadaveric specimens, the use of a mechanical device and the APP as a guide for acetabular cup placement resulted in good positioning with respect to both of Lewinnek’s safe zones.

Download Full-text

Acetabular Cup Revision Arthroplasty Using Morselized Impaction Allograft

Hip & Pelvis ◽

10.5371/hp.2018.30.2.65 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 30 (2) ◽

pp. 65 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Joong-Myung Lee ◽

Tae-ho Kim

Keyword(s):

Revision Arthroplasty ◽

Acetabular Cup ◽

Cup Revision

Download Full-text

Porous tantalum shells and augments for acetabular cup revisions

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology ◽

10.1007/s00590-013-1354-3 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 24 (6) ◽

pp. 911-917 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Andrej Moličnik ◽

Marko Hanc ◽

Gregor Rečnik ◽

Zmago Krajnc ◽

Mitja Rupreht ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acetabular Cup ◽

Porous Tantalum

Download Full-text

Modular sleeves with ceramic heads in isolated acetabular cup revision in younger patients—laboratory and experimental analysis of suitability and clinical outcomes

International Orthopaedics ◽

10.1007/s00264-012-1735-y ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 37 (1) ◽

pp. 15-19 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Peter Helwig ◽

Lukas Konstantinidis ◽

Anja Hirschmüller ◽

Anke Bernstein ◽

Oliver Hauschild ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Experimental Analysis ◽

Acetabular Cup ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Cup Revision

Download Full-text

Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Smaller Acetabular Cup Size in Relation to the Femoral Head Size: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study

Hip International ◽

10.5301/hipint.5000418 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 147-152 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Carlos Suarez-Ahedo ◽

Chengcheng Gui ◽

Timothy J. Martin ◽

Sivashankar Chandrasekaran ◽

Parth Lodhia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Femoral Head ◽

Head Size ◽

Robotic Arm ◽

Matched Pair ◽

Femoral Head Size ◽

Acetabular Cup ◽

Acetabular Bone ◽

Head Diameter ◽

Total Hip ◽

Femoral Head Diameter

Purpose To compare the acetabular component size relative to the patient's native femoral head size between conventional THA (CTHA) approach and robotic-arm assisted THA (RTHA) to infer which of these techniques preserved more acetabular bone. Methods Patients were included if they had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and underwent total hip replacement between June 2008 and March 2014. Patients were excluded if they had missing or rotated postoperative anteroposterior radiographs. RTHA patients were matched to a control group of CTHA patients, in terms of preoperative native femoral head size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and approach. Acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size was used as a surrogate for amount of bone resected. We compared the groups according to 2 measures describing acetabular cup diameter ( c) in relation to femoral head diameter ( f): (i) c-f, the difference between cup diameter and femoral head diameter and (ii) ( c-f)/ f, the same difference as a fraction of femoral head diameter. Results 57 matched pairs were included in each group. There were no significant differences between groups for demographic measures, femoral head diameter, or acetabular cup diameter (p>0.05). However, measures (i) and (ii) did differ significantly between the groups, with lower values in the RTHA group (p<0.02). Conclusions Using acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size as an approximate surrogate measure of acetabular bone resection may suggest greater preservation of bone stock using RTHA compared to CTHA. Further studies are needed to validate the relationship between acetabular cup size and bone loss in THA.

Download Full-text