Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2/2011

01-03-2011 | Original article

Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement

Authors: Takashi Hisatome, Hideo Doi

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Science | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this investigation is to determine the optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty for reducing neck impingement using a mathematical formula.

Methods

We calculated the cup inclination, cup anteversion, and stem antetorsion in cases with various sizes of femoral head (28, 32, 36, and 44 mm in diameter) to fulfill severe range of motion criteria: (1) flexion more than 120°, (2) extension more than 30°, (3) internal rotation at 90° flexion more than 60°, and (4) external rotation at neutral more than 40°.

Results

When the areas to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria were compared by femoral head diameter, the area for 28 mm was extremely small relative to those of 32, 36, and 44 mm. Theoretically, the optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty without neck impingement should be oriented at a cup inclination of 45° combined with the cup anteversion and stem antetorsion so that the sum of the cup anteversion plus 0.7 times the stem antetorsion equals 42° with a head diameter more than 32 mm. This study also recommends the optimum position of the prosthesis as 45° cup inclination, 25° cup anteversion, and 25° stem antetorsion when the surgeon can choose a freely adjustable modular stem system. However, this theory assumes that the pelvic inclination has no changes caused by aging and can be validated in the lying, sitting, and standing positions.

Conclusions

The prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty without neck impingement should be oriented at a cup inclination of 45° combined with cup anteversion and stem antetorsion determined by the formula: cup anteversion + 0.7 × stem antetorsion = 42°. A range of acceptable positions would be more helpful and realistic to a surgeon trying to ensure adequate prosthesis positions.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gonzalez della Valle A, Ruzo PS, Li S, Pellicci P, Sculco TP, Salvati EA. Dislodgment of polyethylene liners in first and second-generation Harris-Galante acetabular components. A report of eighteen cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:553–9.PubMed Gonzalez della Valle A, Ruzo PS, Li S, Pellicci P, Sculco TP, Salvati EA. Dislodgment of polyethylene liners in first and second-generation Harris-Galante acetabular components. A report of eighteen cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:553–9.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Murray DW. Impingement and loosening of the long posterior wall acetabular implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:337–9. Murray DW. Impingement and loosening of the long posterior wall acetabular implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:337–9.
3.
go back to reference Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop. 1998;355:163–70.PubMedCrossRef Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop. 1998;355:163–70.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head–neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:315–21.PubMed D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head–neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:315–21.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Nadzadi ME, Pedersen DR, Yack HJ, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. J Biomech. 2003;36(5):77–91. Nadzadi ME, Pedersen DR, Yack HJ, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. J Biomech. 2003;36(5):77–91.
6.
go back to reference D’Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr. Optimizing acetabular component position to minimize impingement and reduce contact stress. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(Suppl 2):87–91.PubMed D’Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr. Optimizing acetabular component position to minimize impingement and reduce contact stress. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(Suppl 2):87–91.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Yoshimine F, Ginbayashi K. A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement. J Biomech. 2002;35:989–93.PubMedCrossRef Yoshimine F, Ginbayashi K. A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement. J Biomech. 2002;35:989–93.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yoshimine F. The influence of the oscillation angle and neck anteversion of the prosthesis on the cup safe zone that fulfills the criteria for range of motion in total hip replacements. The required oscillation angle for an acceptable cup safe zone. J Biomech. 2005;38:125–32.PubMed Yoshimine F. The influence of the oscillation angle and neck anteversion of the prosthesis on the cup safe zone that fulfills the criteria for range of motion in total hip replacements. The required oscillation angle for an acceptable cup safe zone. J Biomech. 2005;38:125–32.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:228–32.PubMed Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:228–32.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Widmar KH, Zurfluth B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815–21.CrossRef Widmar KH, Zurfluth B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815–21.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Robinson RP, Simonian PT, Gradisar IM, Ching RP. Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:140–6.PubMedCrossRef Robinson RP, Simonian PT, Gradisar IM, Ching RP. Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:140–6.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Yamaguchi M, Akisue T, Bauer TW, Hashimoto Y. The spatial location of impingement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:305–13.PubMedCrossRef Yamaguchi M, Akisue T, Bauer TW, Hashimoto Y. The spatial location of impingement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:305–13.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K. Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation. J Orthop Res. 1998;16:513–7.PubMedCrossRef Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K. Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation. J Orthop Res. 1998;16:513–7.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Morrey BF. Difficult complications after hip joint replacement. Clin Orthop. 1997;344:179–87.PubMed Morrey BF. Difficult complications after hip joint replacement. Clin Orthop. 1997;344:179–87.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1300–7.PubMed Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1300–7.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Johnston RC, Smidt GL. Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop. 1970;72:205–15.PubMed Johnston RC, Smidt GL. Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop. 1970;72:205–15.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Kerrigan DC, Lee LW, Collins JL, Riley PO, Lipsitz LA. Reduced hip extension during walking: Healthy elderly and fallers versus young adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:26–30.PubMedCrossRef Kerrigan DC, Lee LW, Collins JL, Riley PO, Lipsitz LA. Reduced hip extension during walking: Healthy elderly and fallers versus young adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:26–30.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Suzuki K, Matsubara M, Morita S, Muneta T, Shinomiya K. CT image evaluation of the internal rotation limit prior to bony impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2002;7:433–8.PubMedCrossRef Suzuki K, Matsubara M, Morita S, Muneta T, Shinomiya K. CT image evaluation of the internal rotation limit prior to bony impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2002;7:433–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Krenzel BA, Berend ME, Malinzak RA, Faris PM, Keating M, Meding JB, Ritter MA. High preoperative range of motion is a significant risk factor for dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:31–5.PubMedCrossRef Krenzel BA, Berend ME, Malinzak RA, Faris PM, Keating M, Meding JB, Ritter MA. High preoperative range of motion is a significant risk factor for dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:31–5.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Incavo SJ, Thompson MT, Gold JE, Patel RV, Icenogle KD, Noble PC. Which procedure better restores intact hip range of motion: Total hip arthroplasty or resurfacing? A combined cadaveric and computer simulation study. J Arthroplasty 2011 (in press). Incavo SJ, Thompson MT, Gold JE, Patel RV, Icenogle KD, Noble PC. Which procedure better restores intact hip range of motion: Total hip arthroplasty or resurfacing? A combined cadaveric and computer simulation study. J Arthroplasty 2011 (in press).
21.
go back to reference Miki H, Yamanashi W, Nishii T, Sato Y, Yoshikawa H. Sugano N 2007 Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:946–52.PubMedCrossRef Miki H, Yamanashi W, Nishii T, Sato Y, Yoshikawa H. Sugano N 2007 Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:946–52.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Nadzadi ME, Pedersen DR, Yack HJ, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. J Biomech. 2003;36:577–91.PubMedCrossRef Nadzadi ME, Pedersen DR, Yack HJ, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. J Biomech. 2003;36:577–91.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:217–20.PubMed Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:217–20.PubMed
24.
25.
go back to reference Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stockl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty; the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:762–9.PubMedCrossRef Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stockl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty; the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:762–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ranawat CS, Maynard MJ. Modern technique of cemented total hip arthroplasty. Tech Orthop. 1991;6:17–25.CrossRef Ranawat CS, Maynard MJ. Modern technique of cemented total hip arthroplasty. Tech Orthop. 1991;6:17–25.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. A multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:282–8.PubMedCrossRef Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. A multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:282–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement
Authors
Takashi Hisatome
Hideo Doi
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Science / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0949-2658
Electronic ISSN: 1436-2023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-011-0039-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2/2011 Go to the issue