Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-06-2011 | Symposium: Update on Hard-on-Hard Bearings in Hip Arthroplasty

Intraoperative Radiographs for Placing Acetabular Components in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Authors: Thomas P. Gross, MD, Fei Liu, PhD, Lee Webb, NP

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 6/2011

Abstract

Background

Various clinical and biomechanical studies suggest certain acetabular positions may be associated with higher wear and failure rates in modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties. However, there are no widely available, reliable, and cost-effective surgical techniques that ensure surgeons are able to place an acetabular component within the safe range of inclination angles after hip resurfacing surgeries.

Questions/purposes

We investigated the accuracy of intraoperative radiographs to determine the acetabular inclination angle in resurfacing arthroplasty procedures.

Patients and Methods

The study group included the first 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed after we started routinely checking the intraoperative acetabular inclination angles. The acetabular component was repositioned if the intraoperative acetabular inclination angle was out of the target range of 30° to 50°. The control group included the previous 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed without the benefit of intraoperative radiographs. A posterior minimally invasive surgical approach was used in both groups. Demographics and diagnoses were similar in both groups.

Results

The average (± SD) difference between the intraoperative and 6-week radiographs was 2.7° ± 2.5°. The acetabular inclination angles at 6-week followup were within the targeted range more frequently in the study group than in the control group (outliers: 4% versus 29%).

Conclusions

These data suggest a single intraoperative radiograph is a quick, reliable, and cost-effective method for ensuring the acetabular inclination angle is within the targeted range.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Tamhane AC, Dunlop DD. Statistics and Data Analysis: From Elementary to Intermediate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.

Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 Conserve Plus. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:36–43.PubMedCrossRef

Brodner W, Grubl A, Jankovsky R, Meisinger V, Lehr S, Gottsauner-Wolf F. Cup inclination and serum concentration of cobalt and chromium after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:66–70.PubMedCrossRef

Campbell P, Beaule PE, Ebramzadeh E, LeDuff M, De Smet K, Lu Z, Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award. A study of implant failure in metal-on-metal surface arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:35–46.

Cerha O, Kirschner S, Gunther KP, Lutzner J. Cost analysis for navigation in knee endoprosthetics. Orthopade. 2009;38:1235–1240.PubMedCrossRef

Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don’t do. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:102–107.PubMedCrossRef

Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:177–184.PubMedCrossRef

De Haan R, Campbell PA, Su EP, De Smet KA. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1158–1163.PubMedCrossRef

De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1291–1297.PubMedCrossRef

10.

DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M, Simon DA, Morgan F, Moody JE, Nikou C, Colgan BD, Aston CA, Labarca RS, Kischell E, Kanade T. The Otto Aufranc Award. Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively acetabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:8–22.

11.

Gross TP, Liu F. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with an uncemented femoral component: a seven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):32–37.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Haaker RG, Tiedjen K, Ottersbach A, Rubenthaler F, Stockheim M, Stiehl JB. Comparison of conventional versus computer-navigated acetabular component insertion. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:151–159.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hart AJ, Buddhdev P, Winship P, Faria N, Powell JJ, Skinner JA. Cup inclination angle of greater than 50 degrees increases whole blood concentrations of cobalt and chromium ions after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 2008;18:212–219.PubMed

14.

Hassan DM, Johnston GH, Dust WN, Watson G, Dolovich AT. Accuracy of intraoperative assessment of acetabular prosthesis placement. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:80–84.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: an independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1431–1438.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Baethis H, Grifka J. Greater accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup by using an image-free navigation system. Int Orthop. 2005;29:272–276.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Paetzel C, Grifka J. Position of the acetabular cup—accuracy of radiographic calculation compared to CT-based measurement. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58:294–300.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Konig DP, Michael JW, Eysel P, Munnich U, Lichtenstein T, Schnurr C. Computer-assisted joint replacement surgery: financial and clinical impact for a specialised orthopaedic hospital. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009;147:669–674.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kruger S, Zambelli PY, Leyvraz PF, Jolles BM. Computer-assisted placement technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: improvement in accuracy? Int Orthop. 2009;33:27–33.PubMedCrossRef

20.

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

21.

Mont MA, Schmalzried TP. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):3–11.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Patil S, Bergula A, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr, D’Lima DD. Polyethylene wear and acetabular component orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(Suppl 4):56–63.PubMed

23.

Resubal JR, Morgan DA. Computer-assisted vs conventional mechanical jig technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:341–350.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Romanowski JR, Swank ML. Imageless navigation in hip resurfacing: avoiding component malposition during the surgeon learning curve. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):65–70.PubMedCrossRef

25.

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. The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning—a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop. 2004;28:198–201.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Schnurr C, Michael JW, Eysel P, Konig DP. Imageless navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty increases the implant accuracy. Int Orthop. 2009;33:365–372.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Seyler TM, Lai LP, Sprinkle DI, Ward WG, Jinnah RH. Does computer-assisted surgery improve accuracy and decrease the learning curve in hip resurfacing? A radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):71–80.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:436–441.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Wan Z, Malik A, Jaramaz B, Chao L, Dorr LD. Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:32–42.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Williams D, Royle M, Norton M. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: the effect of cup position and component size on range of motion to impingement. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:144–151.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Williams S, Leslie I, Isaac G, Jin Z, Ingham E, Fisher J. Tribology and wear of metal-on-metal hip prostheses: influence of cup angle and head position. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):111–117.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Wines AP, McNicol D. Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:696–701.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Witzleb WC, Hanisch U, Ziegler J, Guenther KP. In vivo wear rate of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of 10 retrieved components. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:951–956.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Ybinger T, Kumpan W, Hoffart HE, Muschalik B, Bullmann W, Zweymuller K. Accuracy of navigation-assisted acetabular component positioning studied by computed tomography measurements: methods and results. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:812–817.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Intraoperative Radiographs for Placing Acetabular Components in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
Authors: Thomas P. Gross, MD
Fei Liu, PhD
Lee Webb, NP
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1701-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Intraoperative Radiographs for Placing Acetabular Components in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Emerging Ideas: Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 in Muscle Atrophy

Pelvic Rotation and Tilt Can Cause Misinterpretation of the Acetabular Index Measured on Radiographs

A Squeaky Reputation: The Problem May Be Design-dependent

Does Arthroscopic FAI Correction Improve Function with Radiographic Arthritis?

Direct Anterior Approach for Hip Resurfacing: Surgical Technique and Complications

Is Resurfacing Arthroplasty Appropriate for Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis?