Optimal Combined Anteversion Range for Obtaining a Wider Range of Motion without Prosthetic Impingement after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Three-dimensional Analysis Study

Background: Obtaining a larger theoretical range of motion (ROM) is crucial to avoid prosthetic impingement after total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, no reports have examined the permissible range values of combined anteversion (CA) satisfying targeted ROM without prosthetic impingement. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the possible postoperative CA extent that would allow meeting target ROM criteria according to Yoshimine’s theory using computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional motion analysis after THA.Methods: This study included 114 patients (133 hips) who underwent cementless primary THA using a CT-based navigation system and implants (oscillation angle ≥135°). Implant positions were determined using Yoshimine's CA formula. Postoperative evaluation was conducted using a three-dimensional templating software for CT data. The postoperative Yoshimine’s and Widmer’s CA was calculated, and the difference between the target and postoperative values was defined as the error of Yoshimine’s CA and Widmer’s CA. Prosthetic ROM was assessed by Yoshimine’s stringent criteria for activities of daily living. Based on fulfilling these criteria, all patients were divided into the ROM (+) and ROM (-) groups. Evaluation items were compared between the two groups.Results: There were 111 and 22 hips in the ROM (+) and ROM (-) groups, respectively. A significant difference was noted in the absolute error of Yoshimine’s and Widmer’s CA between the two groups. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, threshold values of 6.0 (higher values indicate greater disability; sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 72.1%) for the absolute Yoshimine’s CA difference (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87, P<0.01) and 6.9 (higher values indicate greater disability; sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 88.3%) for the absolute Widmer’s CA difference (AUC 0.83, P<0.01) were predictors in the ROM (-) group.Conclusions: The target range of Yoshimine’s CA (90.8°±6.0°) and Widmer’s CA values (37.3°±6.9°) was crucial in implant orientation for obtaining theoretical ROM without prosthetic impingement after THA.

The impact of functional combined anteversion on hip range of motion: a new optimal zone to reduce risk of impingement in total hip arthroplasty

Aims Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position. Methods We used a virtual hip ROM (vROM) tool to investigate whether there is an ideal functional combined anteversion for reduced risk of hip impingement. We collected PT information from functional lateral radiographs (standing and sitting) and a supine CT scan, which was then input into the vROM tool. We developed a novel vROM scoring system, considering both seated flexion and standing extension manoeuvres, to quantify whether hips had limited ROM and then correlated the vROM score to component position. Results The vast majority of THA planned with standing combined anteversion between 30° to 50° and sitting combined anteversion between 45° to 65° had a vROM score > 99%, while the majority of vROM scores less than 99% were outside of this zone. The range of PT in supine, standing, and sitting positions varied widely between patients. Patients who had little change in PT from standing to sitting positions had decreased hip vROM. Conclusion It has been shown previously that an individual’s unique spinopelvic alignment influences functional cup anteversion. But functional combined anteversion, which also considers stem position, should be used to identify an ideal THA position for impingement-free ROM. We found a functional combined anteversion zone for THA that may be used moving forward to place total hip components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):834–841.

Optimal combined anteversion pattern for obtaining a wider range of motion without prosthetic impingement after total hip arthroplasty: a three-dimensional analysis study

Background Obtaining a larger theoretical range of motion (ROM) is crucial to avoid prosthetic impingement after total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, no reports have examined the permissible range values of combined anteversion (CA) satisfying targeted ROM without prosthetic impingement. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the possible postoperative CA extent that would allow meeting target ROM criteria according to Yoshimine’s theory using computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional motion analysis after THA. Methods This study included 114 patients (133 hips) who underwent cementless primary THA using a CT-based navigation system and implants (oscillation angle ≥ 135°). Implant positions were determined using Yoshimine's CA formula. Postoperative evaluation was conducted using a three-dimensional templating software for CT data. The postoperative Yoshimine’s and Widmer’s CA was calculated, and the difference between the target and postoperative values was defined as the error of Yoshimine’s CA and Widmer’s CA. Prosthetic ROM was assessed by Yoshimine’s stringent criteria for activities of daily living. Based on fulfilling these criteria, all patients were divided into the ROM (+) and ROM (-) groups. Evaluation items were compared between the two groups. Results There were 111 and 22 hips in the ROM (+) and ROM (-) groups, respectively. A significant difference was noted in the absolute error of Yoshimine’s and Widmer’s CA between the two groups. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, threshold values of 6.0 (higher values indicate greater disability; sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 72.1%) for the absolute Yoshimine’s CA difference (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87, P < 0.01) and 6.9 (higher values indicate greater disability; sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 88.3%) for the absolute Widmer’s CA difference (AUC 0.83, P < 0.01) were predictors in the ROM (-) group. Conclusions The target range of Yoshimine’s CA (90.8°±6.0°) and Widmer’s CA values (37.3°±6.9°) was crucial in implant orientation for obtaining theoretical ROM without prosthetic impingement after THA.

RESEARCH ON ACETABULAR PARAMETERS, FEMORAL AND COMBINED ANTEVERSION ANGLES ON COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY SCAN

54 computed-tomography scans of 54 Vietnamese adults with at least 1 non-pathological hip at Hanoi Medical University Hospital are used on our research. The results are: Acetabular inclination angle: 37.48 ± 4.95o; Acetabular anteversion angle: 17.2 ± 5.81o; Femoral anteversion angle: 12.03 ± 7.32o; Combined anteversion: 29.23 ± 9.07o.

A comparison of accuracy and safety between stem-first and cup-first total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled trial

Background: The combined anteversion theory to prevent impingement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been proposed. However, because stem-anteversion is influenced by the native femoral anteversion and the stem flexion/extension angle, it is often difficult to adjust stem anteversion during surgery. Therefore, the stem-first (combined anteversion) technique may be useful to adjust and achieve appropriate cup anteversion during surgery with respect to the implanted stem anteversion angle. However, the technique may adversely affect cup or stem angle accuracy and result in intra-operative bleeding, post-operative adverse events, and prolonged operative time. It is inconclusive whether either the stem-first or cup-first technique is safe or accurate. Therefore, this study assessed the accuracy and safety of stem-first THA compared to those of cup-first THA. Materials and methods: This prospective randomised controlled trial analysed 114 patients who were randomly divided into 2 groups (stem-first group: n = 57, cup-first group (control group): n = 57). Primary outcomes included cup and stem angle, the discrepancies from the targeted angle and combined anteversion (evaluated via CT at 3 months postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, operative time, WOMAC, and adverse events. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI or in the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Performing stem-first in THA did not adversely affect cup and stem angle accuracy, or result in intraoperative bleeding, prolongation of operative time, or postoperative adverse events. Thus, performing stem-first may be advantageous for achieving combined anteversion theory. Trial registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) registration number UMIN000025189.

Acetabular- and femoral orientation after periacetabular osteotomy as a predictor for outcome and osteoarthritis

Background Periacetabular osteotomy is a successful treatment for hip dysplasia. The results are influenced, however, by optimal positioning of the acetabular fragment, femoral head morphology and maybe even femoral version as well as combined anteversion have an impact. In order to obtain better insight on fragment placement, postoperative acetabular orientation and femoral morphology were evaluated in a midterm follow-up in regard to functional outcome and osteoarthritis progression. Methods A follow-up examination with 49 prospectively documented patients (66 hips) after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) was performed after 62.2 ± 18.6 months. Mean age of patients undergoing surgery was 26.7 ± 9.6 years, 40 (82%) of these patients were female. All patients were evaluated with an a.p. pelvic x-ray and an isotropic MRI in order to assess acetabular version, femoral head cover, alpha angle, femoral torsion and combined anteversion. The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head center as well as 0.5 cm below and 0.5 and 1 cm above the femoral head center and in addition seven modified acetabular sector angles were determined. Femoral torsion was assessed in an oblique view of the femoral neck. The combined acetabular and femoral version was calculated as well. To evaluate the clinical outcome the pre- and postoperative WOMAC score as well as postoperative Oxford Hip Score and Global Treatment Outcome were analyzed. Results After PAO acetabular version at the femoral head center (31.4 ± 9.6°) was increased, the anterior cover at the 15 o’clock position (34.7 ± 15.4°) was reduced and both correlated significantly with progression of osteoarthritis, although not with the functional outcome. Combined acetabular and femoral torsion had no influence on the progression of osteoarthritis or outcome scores. Conclusion Long-term results after PAO are dependent on good positioning of the acetabular fragment in all 3 planes. Next to a good lateral coverage a balanced horizontal alignment without iatrogenic pincer impingement due to acetabular retroversion, or insufficient coverage of the anterior femoral head is important.