Good vs Poor Results After Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis Method Using Implant and Anatomic Parameters With the EOS Imaging System

Abstract

Background: Existing imaging techniques and single-parameter analyses, in nonfunctional positions, fail to detect the differences between patients with good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty. Methods: The present study developed an analysis method using the EOS full-body, low-dose, biplanar, weightbearing imaging system to compare good vs poor patients after total hip arthroplasty and to report on our preliminary experiences (17 good, 18 poor). Results: All revision cases were found to have at least 4 high or low implant or anatomic parameters relative to the good group. These included acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset, and neckeshaft angle. Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups. Conclusion: With the EOS system, a large cohort can be studied relatively quickly and at low dose, which could lead to patient-specific guidelines