Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2011

01-03-2011 | Original Paper

Do large femoral heads reduce the risks of impingement in total hip arthroplasty with optimal and non-optimal cup positioning?

Authors: Gianluca Cinotti, Niccolò Lucioli, Andrea Malagoli, Carlo Calderoli, Ferdinando Cassese

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess whether large femoral heads (36–38 mm) improve the range of motion in total hip arthroplasty compared to standard (28–32 mm) femoral heads in the presence of optimal and non-optimal cup positioning. A mathematical model of the hip joint was generated by using a laser scan of a dried cadaveric hip. The range of motion was assessed with a cup inclination and anteversion of reference and with non-optimal cup positions. Large femoral heads increased the range of motion, compared to the 28-mm femoral head, in the presence of a hip prosthesis correctly implanted and even more so in the presence of non-optimal cup positioning. However, with respect to the 32-mm femoral head, large femoral heads showed limited benefits both in the presence of optimal and non-optimal cup positioning.
Literature
1.
Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS (2005) Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2456–2463PubMedCrossRef
2.
Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM (1998) Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:163–170PubMedCrossRef
3.
Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF (2002) Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1788–1792PubMed
4.
Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ et al (2005) Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. An in vitro study. J Arthroplasty 20:11–19PubMedCrossRef
5.
Peters CL, McPherson E, Jackson JD, Erickson A (2007) Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter heads in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:140–144PubMedCrossRef
6.
Johnston RC, Smidt GL (1970) Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop Relat Res 72:205–215PubMed
7.
Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM (1998) Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:163–170PubMedCrossRef
8.
Beaulé PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC (2002) Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone J Surg Am 84(2):256–263
9.
Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2006) Dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty with 36- and 40-mm femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:153–155PubMedCrossRef
10.
Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP (1983) Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:151–158PubMed
11.
McCollum DE, Gray WJ (1990) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:159–170PubMed
12.
Ritter MA (1976) Dislocation and subluxation of the total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:92–94PubMed
13.
Woo RY, Morrey BF (1982) Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:1295–1306PubMed
14.
Matsushita I, Morita Y, Ito Y, Gejo R, Kimura T (2009) Activities of daily living after total hip arthroplasty. Is a 32-mm femoral head superior to a 26-mm head for improving daily activities? Int Orthop. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-009-0909-8
15.
D’Lima DD, Urouhart AG, Buehhler KO et al (2000) The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral component on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:315–321
16.
Bartz R, Noble PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS (2000) The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone J Surg Am 82:1300–1307
17.
Widemar K-H (2007) Containment versus impingement: finding a compromise for cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 31(Suppl 1):S29–S33CrossRef
18.
Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH et al (2004) Biomechanics of large femoral heads. Clin Orthop Rel Res 429:102–107CrossRef
19.
Usrey MM, Noble PC, Rudner LJ, Conditt MA, Birman MV, Santore RF, Mathis KB (2006) Does neck/liner impingement increase wear of ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene liners? J Arthroplasty 21(6 Suppl 2):65–71PubMedCrossRef
20.
Yamaguchi M, Akisue T, Bauer TW, Hashimoto Y (2000) The spatial location of impingement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15:305–313PubMedCrossRef
21.
Barrack RL, Butler RA, Laster DR, Andrews P (2001) Stem design and dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results and computer modeling. J Arthroplasty 16(8 Suppl 1):8–12PubMedCrossRef
22.
Earll M, Fehring T, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH (2004) Early osteolysis associated with trunion-liner impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:153–156PubMedCrossRef
23.
Padgett DE, Lipman J, Robie B, Nestor BJ (2006) Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:48–52PubMedCrossRef
24.
Murray DW (1992) Impingement and loosening of the long posterior wall acetabular implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:377–379PubMed
25.
Cobb TK, Morrey BF, Ilstrup DM (1996) The elevated-rim acetabular liner in total hip arthroplasty: relationship to postoperative dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:80–86PubMed
Metadata
Title
Do large femoral heads reduce the risks of impingement in total hip arthroplasty with optimal and non-optimal cup positioning?
Authors
Gianluca Cinotti
Niccolò Lucioli
Andrea Malagoli
Carlo Calderoli
Ferdinando Cassese
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-0954-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

International Orthopaedics 3/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

A cadaveric study of posterior dislocation after total hip replacement—effects of head diameter and acetabular anteversion

Original Paper

Hip fracture: effectiveness of early surgery to prevent 30-day mortality

Original Paper

Endoscopic treatment of prepatellar bursitis

Original Paper

Patella in total knee arthroplasty: to resurface or not to—a cohort study of staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty

Original Paper

Does the technique of lateral cross-wiring (Dorgan’s technique) reduce iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury?

Original Paper

Second generation locked plating of proximal humerus fractures—A prospective multicentre observational study