Mathematical evaluation of jumping distance in total hip arthroplasty: Influence of abduction angle, femoral head offset, and head diameter

Background and purpose The jumping distance (JD) is the degree of lateral translation of the femoral head center required before dislocation occurs. The smaller the distance, the higher the theoretical risk of dislocation. The aim of our study was to evaluate this jumping distance and its variation according to the characteristics of the implant, and also the theoretical gain in using large head diameters of above 38 mm

Minimally invasive computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty, following the concept of femur first and combined anteversion: design of a blinded randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Impingement can be a serious complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and is one of the major causes of postoperative pain, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and implant breakage. Minimally invasive THA and computer-navigated surgery were introduced several years ago. We have developed a novel, computer-assisted operation method for THA following the concept of "femur first"/"combined anteversion", which incorporates various aspects of performing a functional optimization of the cup position, and comprehensively addresses range of motion (ROM) as well as cup containment and alignment parameters. Hence, the purpose of this study is to assess whether the artificial joint's ROM can be improved by this computer-assisted operation method. Second, the clinical and radiological outcome will be evaluated.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A registered patient- and observer-blinded randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients between the ages of 50 and 75 admitted for primary unilateral THA will be included. Patients will be randomly allocated to either receive minimally invasive computer-navigated "femur first" THA or the conventional minimally invasive THA procedure. Self-reported functional status and health-related quality of life (questionnaires) will be assessed both preoperatively and postoperatively. Perioperative complications will be registered. Radiographic evaluation will take place up to 6 weeks postoperatively with a computed tomography (CT) scan. Component position will be evaluated by an independent external institute on a 3D reconstruction of the femur/pelvis using image-processing software. Postoperative ROM will be calculated by an algorithm which automatically determines bony and prosthetic impingements.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In the past, computer navigation has improved the accuracy of component positioning. So far, there are only few objective data quantifying the risks and benefits of computer navigated THA. Therefore, this study has been designed to compare minimally invasive computer-navigated "femur first" THA with a conventional technique for minimally invasive THA. The results of this trial will be presented as soon as they become available.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>DRKS00000739</p

Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty

Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between the acetabular cup position and the risk of dislocation, wear and range of motion after total hip arthroplasty. The present study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the surgeon’s estimated position of the cup after freehand placement in total hip replacement. Peroperative estimated abduction and anteversion of 200 acetabular components (placed by three orthopaedic surgeons and nine residents) were compared with measured outcomes (according to Pradhan) on postoperative radiographs. Cups were placed in 49.7° (SD 6.7) of abduction and 16.0° (SD 8.1) of anteversion. Estimation of placement was 46.3° (SD 4.3) of abduction and 14.6° (SD 5.9) of anteversion. Of more interest is the fact that for the orthopaedic surgeons the mean inaccuracy of estimation was 4.1° (SD 3.9) for abduction and 5.2° (SD 4.5) for anteversion and for their residents this was respectively, 6.3° (SD 4.6) and 5.7° (SD 5.0). Significant differences were found between orthopaedic surgeons and residents for inaccuracy of estimation for abduction, not for anteversion. Body mass index, sex, (un)cemented fixation and surgical approach (anterolateral or posterolateral) were not significant factors. Based upon the inaccuracy of estimation, the group’s chance on future cup placement within Lewinnek’s safe zone (5–25° anteversion and 30–50° abduction) is 82.7 and 85.2% for anteversion and abduction separately. When both parameters are combined, the chance of accurate placement is only 70.5%. The chance of placement of the acetabular component within 5° of an intended position, for both abduction and anteversion is 21.5% this percentage decreases to just 2.9% when the tolerated error is 1°. There is a tendency to underestimate both abduction and anteversion. Orthopaedic surgeons are superior to their residents in estimating abduction of the acetabular component. The results of this study indicate that freehand placement of the acetabular component is not a reliable method

Evaluating comorbidities in total hip and knee arthroplasty: available instruments

Each year millions of patients are treated for joint pain with total joint arthroplasty, and the numbers are expected to rise. Comorbid disease is known to influence the outcome of total joint arthroplasty, and its documentation is therefore of utmost importance in clinical evaluation of the individual patient as well as in research. In this paper, we examine the various methods for obtaining and assessing comorbidity information for patients undergoing joint replacement. Multiple instruments are reliable and validated for this purpose, such as the Charlson Index, Index of Coexistent Disease, and the Functional Comorbidity Index. In orthopedic studies, the Charnley classification and the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical function score (ASA) are widely used. We recommend that a well-documented comorbidity index that incorporates some aspect of mental health is used along with other appropriate instruments to objectively assess the preoperative status of the patient

Dutch guideline on total hip prosthesis

Contains fulltext : 97840.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

addresses: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3528446types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't© 2012 Warren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention

Total hip replacement: increasing femoral offset improves functional outcome

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the independent effect of radiographic measures of implant position, relative to pre-operative anatomical assessment, on the functional outcome of total hip arthroplasty according to change in the Oxford hip score (OHS) 1 year post surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was preformed to assess whether improvement in functional outcome (change in OHS at 1 year) and the relationship with femoral offset and length, and acetabular offset and height. After a power calculation 359 patients were recruited to the study and radiographic measures were performed by blinded observers. Regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of the four radiographic measurements after adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: There was a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in acetabular offset [5.3 mm, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.4–6.2] and increase in femoral offset (6.1 mm, 95 % CI 5.4–6.8). Hence there was no significant change in overall offset. Femoral offset was the only radiographic measure to be achieved statistical significance (r = 0.198, 95 % CI 0.063–0.333, p = 0.004) in relation to clinical outcome, with increasing offset being associated with a greater improvement in the OHS. On combining femoral and acetabular offset increasing offset was associated with a greater improvement in the OHS (r = 0.10, 95 % CI 0.01–0.19, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: This study supports the long-held biomechanical theory of medialisation of the acetabular component with compensatory increased femoral offset results in improved functional outcome