Most preoperative planning calculations of impingement-free range of motion (IFROM) and impingement-free safe zone (IFSZ) rarely consider non-standard shaped prostheses and bony impingement (BI) for total hip arthroplasty (THA). This research developed a novel algorithm that considers BI, prosthetic impingement, pelvic tilt angle (PT) in the sagittal plane, and non-standard-shaped hip prostheses. This research aimed to investigate the effect of BI and PT on hip IFROM, IFSZ, and the BI rate. Using this algorithm to calculate a case, we found that when considering BI, (1) the upper limit of the hip IFROM was decreased, and the different PT affected the upper limit of the hip IFROM of various movements; (2) the BI rate of the flat-rim liner in standing and sitting postures were 54.6% and 67%; and (3) the maximum IFSZ size of the flat-rim liner was reduced by 12%, the reduction rate of the combined pelvic position with a non-zero IFSZ size was 83.2% for the flat-rim liner. Consideration of BI further reduces the IFROM, the IFSZ size, and the number of the combined position of the pelvis with a non-zero IFSZ size of the hip joint. Importantly, this algorithm provides a reliable tool for personalized prosthesis positioning for THA. This algorithm has excellent applications in personalized surgical planning and surgical robotics.
BozicKJKurtzSMLauE, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91a(1): 128–133.
2.
ScifertCFNoblePCBrownTD, et al. Experimental and computational simulation of total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Orthop Clin North Am2001; 32(4): 553–567.
3.
BrownTDCallaghanJJ. Impingement in total hip replacement: mechanisms and consequences. Curr Orthop2008; 22(6): 376–391.
4.
LundbergHJLiuSSCallaghanJJ, et al. Association of third body embedment with rim damage in retrieved acetabular liners. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 465: 133–139.
5.
NadzadiMEPedersenDRCallaghanJJ, et al. Effects of acetabular component orientation on dislocation propensity for small-head-size total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech2002; 17(1): 32–40.
6.
PalitAKingRHartZ, et al. Bone-to-bone and implant-to-bone impingement: a novel graphical representation for hip replacement planning. Ann Biomed Eng2020; 48(4): 1354–1367.
7.
PalitAKingRGuY, et al. Prediction and visualisation of bony impingement for subject specific total hip arthroplasty. IEEE Eng Med Bio2019; 2127–2131. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8857861/citations?tabFilter=papers#citations with no associated volume number
8.
PalitAKingRPierrepontJ, et al. Development of bony range of motion (B-ROM) boundary for total hip replacement planning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2022; 222: 106937.
9.
ShojiTYamasakiTIzumiS, et al. Factors affecting the potential for posterior bony impingement after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2017; 99b(9): 1140–1146.
10.
WeberMvon KunowFInnmannM, et al. Which safe zone is safe in total hip arthroplasty? The effect of bony impingement. J Pers Med2022; 12(5): 812.
11.
KesslerOPatilSWirthS, et al. Bony impingement affects range of motion after total hip arthroplasty: a subject-specific approach. J Orthop Res2008; 26(4): 443–452.
12.
SarmientoAEbramzadehEGoganWJ, et al. Cup containment and orientation in cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br1990; 72(6): 996–1002.
13.
YoshimineFGinbayashiK. A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement. J Biomech2002; 35(7): 989–993.
14.
EllisonP. Mathematical formulae to calculate the theoretical range of motion of prosthetic hip implants with non-circular neck geometry. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2012; 226(10): 804–814.
15.
HaschkeHKonowTHuberG, et al. Influence of flexural rigidity on micromotion at the head-stem taper interface of modular hip prostheses. Med Eng Phys2019; 68: 1–10.
16.
BeheryOALongWJ. The prevalence of elevated-rim polyethylene liner use in primary total hip arthroplasty in the New York State metropolitan area. Arthroplast Today2019; 5(4): 486–488.
17.
JiWTTaoKWangCT. A three-dimensional parameterized and visually kinematic simulation module for the theoretical range of motion of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech2010; 25(5): 427–432.
18.
BengsBCSangiorgioSNEbramzadehE. Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs. Acta Orthop2008; 79(6): 755–762.
19.
LavigneMGanapathiMMottardS, et al. Range of motion of large head total hip arthroplasty is greater than 28 mm total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing. Clin Biomech2011; 26(3): 267–273.
20.
FengTTangHZhangX, et al. A novel algorithm to efficiently calculate the impingement-free range of motion of irregularly-shaped total hip arthroplasty components. J Orthop Res2023; 41(11): 2516–2529.
21.
DorrLDCallaghanJJ. Death of the Lewinnek “Safe Zone.J Arthroplasty2019; 34(1): 1–2.
22.
MellonSJGrammatopoulosGAndersenMS, et al. Individual motion patterns during gait and sit-to-stand contribute to edge-loading risk in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2013; 227(7): 799–810.
23.
SteflMLunderganWHeckmannN, et al. Spinopelvic mobility and acetabular component position for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2017; 99b(1Supple A): 37–45.
24.
TangHLiYZhouY, et al. A modeling study of a patient-specific safe zone for THA: calculation, validation, and key factors based on standing and sitting sagittal pelvic tilt. Clin Orthop Relat Res2022; 480(1): 191–205.
25.
BanerjeeSCherianJJElmallahRK, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices2016; 13(1): 47–56.
26.
HasegawaMToneSNaitoY, et al. Comparison of the accuracies of computed tomography-based navigation and image-free navigation for acetabular cup insertion in total hip arthroplasty in the lateral decubitus position. Comput Assist Surg2021; 26(1): 69–76.
27.
MurrayDW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75-B(2): 228–232.
28.
TangHGuoSMaZ, et al. A patient-specific algorithm for predicting the standing sagittal pelvic tilt one year after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2024; 106-B(1): 19–27.
29.
AndreassenTEHumeDRHamiltonLD, et al. Three dimensional lower extremity musculoskeletal geometry of the visible human female and male. Sci Data2023; 10(1): 34.
30.
ElkinsJMCallaghanJJBrownTD. The ‘Landing Zone’ for wear and stability in total hip arthroplasty is smaller than we thought: A computational analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473(2): 441–452.
31.
PatilSBergulaAChenPC, et al. Polyethylene wear and acetabular component orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85a: 56–63.
