Dislocation is 1 of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty but dislocation rates have not changed in the past decades, compromising patients’ well-being. Acetabular cup orientation plays a key role in implant stability and has been widely studied. This article investigates whether there is a consensus on optimal cup orientation, which is necessary when using a navigation system.
Methods:
A systematic search of the literature in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed (March 2017) to identify articles that investigated the direct relationship between cup orientation and dislocation, including a thorough evaluation of postoperative cup orientation assessment methods.
Results:
28 relevant articles evaluating a direct relation between dislocation and cup orientation could not come to a consensus. The key reason is a lack of uniformity in the assessment of cup orientation. Cup orientation is assessed with different imaging modalities, different methodologies, different definitions for inclination and anteversion, several reference planes and distinct patient positions.
Conclusions:
All available studies lack uniformity in cup orientation assessment; therefore it is impossible to reach consensus on optimal cup orientation. Using navigation systems for placement of the cup is inevitably flawed when using different definitions in the preoperative planning, peroperative placement and postoperative evaluation. Further methodological development is required to assess cup orientation. Consequently, the postoperative assessment should be uniform, thus differentiating between anterior and posterior dislocation, use the same definitions for inclination and anteversion with the same reference plane and with the patient in the same position.
PivecRJohnsonAJMearsSCet al. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet2012; 380: 1768–1777.
2.
BozicKJKurtzSMLauEet al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 128–133.
3.
KurtzSMOngKLSchmierJet al. Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 144–151.
4.
OngKLMowatFSChanNet al. Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 446: 22–28.
5.
ShojiTYasunagaYYamasakiTet al. Bony impingement depends on the bone morphology of the hip after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2013; 37: 1897–1903.
6.
HammerbergEMWanZDastaneMet al. Wear and range of motion of different femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 839–843.
7.
PiscitelliPIolasconGInnocentiMet al. Painful prosthesis: approaching the patient with persistent pain following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab2013; 10: 97–110.
8.
LaffosseJMAubinKLavigneMet al. Radiographic changes of the femoral neck after total hip resurfacing. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2011; 97: 229–240.
9.
BiedermannRToninAKrismerMet al. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87: 762–769.
10.
RittmeisterMCallitsisC. Factors influencing cup orientation in 500 consecutive total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 445: 192–196.
11.
TurnerRS. Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocations. Incidence, etiologic factors, and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res1994; 301: 196–204.
BerryDJHarmsenWSCabanelaMEet al. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 171–177.
14.
MalkaniALOngKLLauEet al. Early- and late-term dislocation risk after primary hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 21–25.
15.
WinesAPMcNicolD. Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2006; 21: 696–701.
16.
GrammatopoulosGAlvandAMonkAPet al. Surgeons accuracy in achieving their desired acetabular component orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2016; 98: e72.
17.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrRet al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
18.
DanoffJRBobmanJTCunnGet al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 506–511.
19.
GrammatopoulosGThomasGERPanditHet al. The effect of orientation of the acetabular component on outcome following total hip arthroplasty with small diameter hard-on-soft bearings. Bone Joint J2015; 97: 164–172.
20.
SnijdersTvan GaalenSMde GastA. Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot2017; 13: e1843.
21.
SeagraveKGTroelsenAMalchauHet al. Acetabular cup position and risk of dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2017; 88: 10–17.
22.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJet al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62: e1–e34.
23.
OCEBM Level of Evidence. 2011, http://www.cebm.net (2011, accessed 10 April 2017).
24.
EspositoCIGladnickBPLeeYYet al. Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 109–113.
25.
Ezquerra-HerrandoLSeral-GarcíaBQuilezMPet al. Instability of total hip replacement: a clinical study and determination of its risk factors. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol2015; 59: 287–294.
26.
FacklerCDPossR. Dislocation in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res1980; 151: 169–178.
27.
FujishiroTHiranakaTHashimotoSet al. The effect of acetabular and femoral component version on dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2016; 40: 697–702.
28.
JollesBMZanggerPLeyvrazPF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty2002; 17: 282–288.
29.
KristiansenBJørgensenLHölmichP. Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1985; 103: 375–377.
30.
LindbergHOCarlssonASGentzCFet al. Recurrent and non-recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand1982; 53: 947–952.
31.
LeichtleUGosselkeNWirthCJet al. Radiologic evaluation of cup placement variation in conventional total hip arthroplasty. Rofo2007; 179: 46–52.
32.
PollardJADaumWJUchidaT. Can simple radiographs be predictive of total hip dislocation?J Arthroplasty1995; 10: 800–804.
33.
TimperleyAJBiauDChewDet al. Dislocation after total hip replacement - there is no such thing as a safe zone for socket placement with the posterior approach. Hip Int2016; 26: 121–127.
34.
MinodaYKadowakiTKimM. Acetabular component orientation in 834 total hip arthroplasties using a manual technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 445: 186–191.
35.
WoolsonSTRahimtoolaZO. Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 662–668.
36.
PierchonFPasquierGCottenAet al. Causes of dislocation of total hip arthroplasty. CT study of component alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Br1994; 76: 45–48.
37.
OppererMLeeYYNallyFet al. A critical analysis of radiographic factors in patients who develop dislocation after elective primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2016; 40: 703–708.
38.
Sanz-ReigJLizaur-UtrillaAMiralles-MuñozF. Risk factors for total hip arthroplasty dislocation and its functional outcomes. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol2015; 59: 19–25.
39.
SadhuANamDCoobsBRet al. Acetabular component position and the risk of dislocation following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 987–991.
40.
LiEMedingJBRitterMAet al. The natural history of a posteriorly dislocated total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 964–968.
41.
García-ReyEGarcía-CimbreloE. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 484–490.
42.
LeichtleUGLeichtleCITaslaciFet al. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: risk factors and treatment options. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc2013; 47: 96–103.
43.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrRet al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
44.
MasaokaTYamamotoKShishidoTet al. Study of hip joint dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2006; 30: 26–30.
45.
KimYHChoiYKimJS. Influence of patient-, design-, and surgery-related factors on rate of dislocation after primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 1258–1263.
46.
DuddaMGueleryuezAGautierEet al. Risk factors for early dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a matched case-control study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2010; 18: 179–183.
47.
GrammatopoulosGPanditHGda AssunçãoRet al. Pelvic position and movement during hip replacement. Bone Joint J2014; 96: 876–883.
48.
McLawhornASSculcoPKWeeksKDet al. Targeting a new safe zone: a step in the development of patient-specific component positioning for total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2015; 44: 270–276.
49.
McCollumDEGrayWJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res1990; 261: 159–170.
50.
DorrLDWolfAWChandlerRet al. Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1983; 173: 151–158.
51.
LembeckBMuellerOReizePet al. Pelvic tilt makes acetabular cup navigation inaccurate. Acta Orthop2005; 76: 517–523.
52.
MurrayDW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75: 228–232.
53.
PradhanR. Planar anteversion of the acetabular cup as determined from plain anteroposterior radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Br1999; 81: 431–435.
54.
McLarenRH. Prosthetic hip angulation. Radiology1973; 107: 705–706.
55.
AcklandMKBourneWBUhthoffHK. Anteversion of the acetabular cup. Measurement of angle after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1986; 68: 409–413.
56.
WidmerKH. A simplified method to determine acetabular cup anteversion from plain radiographs. J Arthroplasty2004; 19: 387–390.
57.
ReiningaIHFZijlstraWWagenmakersRet al. Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2010; 11: 92.
58.
LiuZGaoYCaiL. Imageless navigation versus traditional method in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg2015; 21: 122–127.
59.
WidmerKHZurfluhB. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res2004; 22: 815–821.
60.
ManjunathKSSorubanVGopalakrishnaKG. Evaluation of radiological methods of assessing cup anteversion in total hip replacement. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2015; 25: 1285–1292.
61.
NunleyRMKeeneyJAZhuJet al. The reliability and variation of acetabular component anteversion measurements from cross-table lateral radiographs. J Arthroplasty2011; 26: 84–87.
62.
SculcoPKMcLawhornASCarrollKMet al. Anteroposterior radiographs are more accurate than cross-table lateral radiographs for acetabular anteversion assessment: a retrospective cohort study. HSS J2016; 12: 32–38.
63.
RousseauMALazennecJYBoyerPet al. Optimization of total hip arthroplasty implantation: is the anterior pelvic plane concept valid?J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 22–26.
64.
WanZMalikAJaramazBet al. Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 32–42.
65.
BerryDJvon KnochMSchleckCDet al. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 2456–2463.
66.
PadgettDELipmanJRobieBet al. Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 447: 48–52.
67.
PaternoSALachiewiczPFKelleySS. The influence of patient-related factors and the position of the acetabular component on the rate of dislocation after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79: 1202–1210.
68.
Le HuecJCAunobleSPhilippeLet al. Pelvic parameters: origin and significance. Eur Spine J2011; 20: 564–571.
69.
MoskalJTCappsSG. Acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty: an evidence-based analysis. J Arthroplasty2011; 26: 1432–1437.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
