Top

Published in:

01-12-2015 | Original Paper

The impact of standard combined anteversion definitions on gait and clinical outcome within one year after total hip arthroplasty

Authors: Markus Weber, Tim Weber, Michael Woerner, Benjamin Craiovan, Michael Worlicek, Sebastian Winkler, Joachim Grifka, Tobias Renkawitz

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 12/2015

Abstract

Purpose

Different target areas within the concept of combined cup and stem anteversion have been published for total hip arthroplasty (THA). We asked whether component positioning according to eight standard combined anteversion rules is associated with (1) more physiological gait patterns, (2) higher improvement of gait variables and (3) better clinical outcome after THA.

Methods

In a prospective clinical study, 60 patients received cementless THA through an anterolateral MIS approach in a lateral decubitus position. Six weeks postoperatively, implant position was analysed using 3D-CT by an independent external institute. Preoperatively, six and 12 months postoperatively range of motion, normalized walking speed and hip flexion symmetry index were measured using 3D motion-capture gait analysis. Patient-related outcome measures (HHS, HOOS, EQ-5D) were obtained by an observer blinded to 3D-CT results. Eight combined anteversion definitions and Lewinnek’s “safe zone” were evaluated regarding their impact on gait patterns and clinical outcome.

Results

Combined cup and stem anteversion according to standard combined anteversion definitions as well as cup placement within Lewinnek’s “safe zone” did not influence range of motion, normalized walking speed and/or hip flexion symmetry index six and 12 months after THA. Similarly, increase of gait parameters within the first year after THA was comparable between all eight combined anteversion rules. Clinical outcome measures like HHS, HOOS and EQ-5D did not show any benefit for either of the combined anteversion definitions.

Conclusions

Standard combined cup and stem anteversion rules do not improve postoperative outcome as measured by gait analysis and clinical scores within one year after THA.

Available only for authorised users

Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220PubMed

Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD (2007) Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1832–1842. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01313 CrossRefPubMed

McKibbin B (1970) Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 52:148–159

Ranawat CS, Maynard MJ (1991) Modern technique of cemented total hip arthroplasty. Tech Orthop 6:17–25CrossRef

Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:119–127. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0598-4 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Widmer KH, Zurfluh B (2004) Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res 22:815–821. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2003.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

Yoshimine F (2006) The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements. J Biomech 39:1315–1323. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.03.008 CrossRefPubMed

Murray DW (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 75:228–232

Wan Z, Malik A, Jaramaz B, Chao L, Dorr LD (2009) Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:32–42. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0597-5 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

10.

Long WT, Dorr LD, Healy B, Perry J (1993) Functional recovery of noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 288:73–77

11.

Boardman DL, Dorey F, Thomas BJ, Lieberman JR (2000) The accuracy of assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a prospective correlation study of walking ability and 2 validated measurement devices. J Arthroplasty 15:200–204CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hulet C, Hurwitz DE, Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Vielpeau C (2000) Functional gait adaptations in patients with painful hip. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 86:581–589PubMed

13.

Renkawitz T, Haimerl M, Dohmen L, Gneiting S, Wegner M, Ehret N, Buchele C, Schubert M, Lechler P, Woerner M, Sendtner E, Schuster T, Ulm K, Springorum R, Grifka J (2011) Minimally invasive computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty, following the concept of femur first and combined anteversion: design of a blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:192. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-192 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

14.

Weber T, Dendorfer S, Dullien S, Grifka J, Verkerke GJ, Renkawitz T (2012) Measuring functional outcome after total hip replacement with subject-specific hip joint loading. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 226:939–946. doi:10.1177/0954411912447728 CrossRef

15.

Winter DA, Patla AE, Frank JS, Walt SE (1990) Biomechanical walking pattern changes in the fit and healthy elderly. Phys Ther 70:340–347PubMed

16.

Sadeghi H, Allard P, Prince F, Labelle H (2000) Symmetry and limb dominance in able-bodied gait: a review. Gait Posture 12:34–45CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hof AL (1996) Scaling gait data to body size. Gait Posture 4:222–223CrossRef

18.

Pinzone O, Schwartz MH, Thomason P, Baker R (2014) The comparison of normative reference data from different gait analysis services. Gait Posture 40:286–290. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.185 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Weber M, Woerner ML, Springorum HR, Hapfelmeier A, Grifka J, Renkawitz TF (2014) Plain radiographs fail to reflect femoral offset in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29:1661–1665. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.023 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF (2002) Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:282–288CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hisatome T, Doi H (2011) Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement. J Orthop Sci 16:229–237. doi:10.1007/s00776-011-0039-1 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Merle C, Grammatopoulos G, Waldstein W, Pegg E, Pandit H, Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Murray DW (2013) Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e172. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01014 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Schwartz MH, Rozumalski A (2008) The Gait Deviation Index: a new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait Posture 28:351–357. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.05.001 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Alshameeri Z, Khanduja V (2014) The effect of femoro-acetabular impingement on the kinematics and kinetics of the hip joint. Int Orthop 38:1615–1620. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2302-5 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

25.

Stansfield BW, Nicol AC (2002) Hip joint contact forces in normal subjects and subjects with total hip prostheses: walking and stair and ramp negotiation. Clin Biomech 17:130–139CrossRef

26.

Babisch JW, Layher F, Amiot LP (2008) The rationale for tilt-adjusted acetabular cup navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:357–365. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00628 CrossRefPubMed

27.

McCollum DE, Gray WJ (1990) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:159–170

28.

Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Coleman-Wood K, Kaufman KR, Berry DJ (2009) The 2008 Frank Stinchfield award: variation in postoperative pelvic tilt may confound the accuracy of hip navigation systems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:43–49. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0521-z PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

29.

Aqil A, Drabu R, Bergmann JH, Masjedi M, Manning V, Andrews B, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Cobb JP (2013) The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. Int Orthop 37:795–801. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1819-3 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

30.

Sariali E, Klouche S, Mouttet A, Pascal-Moussellard H (2014) The effect of femoral offset modification on gait after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 85(2):123–127. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.889980

31.

Grzesiak A, Aminian K, Lecureux E, Jobin F, Jolles BM (2014) Total hip replacement with a collarless polished cemented anatomic stem: clinical and gait analysis results at ten years follow-up. Int Orthop 38:717–724. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2186-9 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

32.

Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H (2011) The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:319–329. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

33.

Digioia AM 3rd, Jaramaz B, Plakseychuk AY, Moody JE Jr, Nikou C, Labarca RS, Levison TJ, Picard F (2002) Comparison of a mechanical acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. J Arthroplasty 17:359–364CrossRefPubMed

34.

Saxler G, Marx A, Vandevelde D, Langlotz U, Tannast M, Wiese M, Michaelis U, Kemper G, Grutzner PA, Steffen R, von Knoch M, Holland-Letz T, Bernsmann K (2004) The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning—a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop 28:198–201. doi:10.1007/s00264-004-0542-5 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

35.

Philippot R, Wegrzyn J, Farizon F, Fessy MH (2009) Pelvic balance in sagittal and Lewinnek reference planes in the standing, supine and sitting positions. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:70–76. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2008.01.001 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Yoon YS, Hodgson AJ, Tonetti J, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2008) Resolving inconsistencies in defining the target orientation for the acetabular cup angles in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 23:253–259. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.10.014 CrossRef

37.

Blendea S, Eckman K, Jaramaz B, Levison TJ, Digioia AM 3rd (2005) Measurements of acetabular cup position and pelvic spatial orientation after total hip arthroplasty using computed tomography/radiography matching. Comput Aided Surg 10:37–43. doi:10.3109/10929080500178032 CrossRefPubMed

Title: The impact of standard combined anteversion definitions on gait and clinical outcome within one year after total hip arthroplasty
Authors: Markus Weber
Tim Weber
Michael Woerner
Benjamin Craiovan
Michael Worlicek
Sebastian Winkler
Joachim Grifka
Tobias Renkawitz
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 12/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2777-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The impact of standard combined anteversion definitions on gait and clinical outcome within one year after total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2015

The impact of hypoxia on mesenchymal progenitor cells of human skeletal tissue in the pathogenesis of heterotopic ossification

Open Achilles tenotomy and posterior capsulotomy for congenital talipes equinovarus

Timing of surgical decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury

Comparison of the pre-shaped anatomical locking plate of 3.5 mm versus 4.5 mm for the treatment of tibial plateau fractures

About the beginnings of orthopaedics in Timisoara

The effect of femoral neck osteotomy on femoral component position of a primary cementless total hip arthroplasty