Dislocation continues to be a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although previous studies of computed simulation analysis investigated the range of motion (ROM), it is unclear whether the ROM before impingement simulated using computed tomography-based 3-dimensional simulation analysis (simulated ROM) is related to dislocation after THA. It is also unclear what angles are required in computed simulation analyses for stable hips after THA. In this study, we compared the simulated ROM in patients with and without dislocation.
Methods:
16 patients with posterior dislocation were compared with 48 matched patients without dislocation. Risk factors including preoperative bone morphology of the hip, implant position, change of femoral offset, change of leg length, anterior aspect of the greater trochanter (GTa) length, and anterior inferior iliac spine length were also compared.
Results:
The mean flexion angle, internal-rotation at 90° flexion (IR) angle, cup anteversion based on the anterior pelvic plane (APP), tilt-adjusted cup anteversion and GTa length were significantly different between patients with dislocation and patients without dislocation (p = 0.033, 0.002, 0.010, 0.047, 0.046). A receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis suggested cutoff points for flexion angle, IR angle, cup anteversion based on the APP, tilt-adjusted cup anteversion and GTa length, of 114.5°, 45.5°, 19.5°, 12.0° and 15.3 mm.
Conclusions:
This study suggests that preoperative planning to achieve a larger simulated ROM, flexion angle and IR angle, may reduce the risk of posterior dislocation. This study also suggests that fine-tuning of cup anteversion and/or trimming of the overhanging GTa during preoperative planning may reduce the risk of posterior dislocation.
GwamCUMistryJBMohamedNS, et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2088–2092.
2.
TaninoHHarmanMKBanksSA, et al. Association between dislocation, impingement, and articular geometry in retrieved acetabular polyethylene cups. J Orthop Res2007; 25: 1401–1407.
3.
NadzadiMEPedersenDRYackHJ, et al. Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation. J Biomech2003; 36: 577–591.
4.
WidmerKHZurfluhB.Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res2004; 22: 815–821.
5.
HagioKSuganoNNishiiT, et al. A novel system of four-dimensional motion analysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res2004; 22: 665–670.
6.
YoshimineF.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 Biomech2006; 39: 1315–1323.
7.
MikiHYamanashiWNishiiT, et al. Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system. J Arthroplasty2007; 22: 946–952.
8.
HigaMTaninoHAboM, et al. Effect of acetabular component anteversion on dislocation mechanisms in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech2011; 44: 1810–1813.
9.
SuganoNTsudaKMikiH, et al. Dynamic measurements of hip movement in deep bending activities after total hip arthroplasty using a 4-dimensional motion analysis system. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 1562–1568.
10.
HarrisWH.Advances in surgical technique for total hip replacement: without and with osteotomy of the greater trochanter. Clin Orthop Relat Res1980; 146: 188–204.
11.
RobinsonRPSimonianPTGradisarIM, et al. Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1997; 79: 140–146.
12.
KesslerOPatilSWirthS, et al. Bony impingement affects range of motion after total hip arthroplasty: a subject-specific approach. J Orthop Res2008; 26: 443–452.
13.
ShojiTYasunagaYYamasakiT, et al. Bony impingement depends on the bone morphology of the hip after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2013; 37: 1897–1903.
14.
WibergGG.Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand1939; 83(Suppl. 58): 5–135.
15.
TaninoHSatoTNishidaY, et al. Hip stability after total hip arthroplasty predicted by intraoperative stability test and range of motion: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2018; 19: 373.
16.
TaninoHItoHHigaM, et al. Three-dimensional computer-aided design based design sensitivity analysis and shape optimization of the stem using adaptive p-method. J Biomech2006; 39: 1948–1953.
17.
ItoHTaninoHYamanakaY, et al. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty using specifically-designed stems for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. A minimum five-year follow-up study. Int Orthop2011; 35: 1289–1294.
18.
Sanchez-SoteloJBerryDJ.Epidemiology of instability after total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am2001; 32: 543–552.
19.
JenkinsonRJKissAJohnsonS, et al. Delayed wound closure increases deep-infection rate associated with lower-grade open fractures: a propensity-matched cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96: 380–386.
20.
LiddleADJudgeAPanditH, et al. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet2014; 384: 1437–1445.
21.
JollesBMZanggerPLeyvrazPF.Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty2002; 17: 282–288.
22.
Beduschi GdeCFigueiredoAEOlandoskiM, et al. Automated peritoneal dialysis is associated with better survival rates compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a propensity score matching analysis. PLoS One2015; 10: e0134047.
23.
HayashiSFujishiroTHashimotoS, et al. The contributing factors of tapered wedge stem alignment during mini-invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res2015; 10: 52.
24.
IwakiriKKobayashiAOhtaY, et al. Efficacy of a pelvic lateral positioner with a mechanical cup navigator based on the anatomical pelvic plane in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3659–3664.
25.
WanZMalikAJaramazB, et al. Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 32–42.
26.
MurphyWSYunHHHaydenB, et al. The safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 325–335.
27.
WuGSieglerSAllardP, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion–part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics. J Biomech2002; 35: 543–548.
28.
SharpIK.Acetabular dysplasia: the acetabular angle. J Bone Joint Surg Br1961; 43: 268–272.
29.
MassieWKHoworthMB. Congenital dislocation of the hip. Part I. Method of grading results. J Bone Joint Surg Am1950; 32: 519–531.
30.
HeymanCHHerndonCH.Legg-Perthes disease; a method for the measurement of the roentgenographic result. J Bone Joint Surg Am1950; 32: 767–778.
31.
SuganoNNoblePCKamaricE, et al. The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br1998; 80: 711–719.
32.
NoblePCAlexanderJWLindahlLJ, et al. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 235: 148–165.
33.
PasquierGDucharneGAliES, et al. Total hip arthroplasty offset measurement: is CT scan the most accurate option?Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2010; 96: 367–375.
34.
UemuraKTakaoMHamadaH, et al. Change in axial rotation of the femur in the resting supine position following total hip arthroplasty. Artif Organs2018; 42: 290–296.
35.
MurrayDW.The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75: 228–232.
36.
WoolsonSTRahimtoolaZO.Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 662–668.
37.
SierraRJRaposoJMTrousdaleRT, et al. Dislocation of primary THA done through a posterolateral approach in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 441: 262–267.
38.
LachiewiczPFSoileauES.Low early and late dislocation rates with 36- and 40-mm heads in patients at high risk for dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 439–443.
39.
BartzRLNobelPCKadakiaNR, et al. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am2000; 82: 1300–1307.
40.
SuzukiKMatsubaraMMoritaS, et al. CT image evaluation of the internal rotation limit prior to bony impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci2002; 7: 433–438.
41.
MikiHKyoTSuganoN.Anatomical hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty with a large change in pelvic inclination. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 1641–1650.e1
42.
NishiiTSuganoNMikiH, et al. Influence of component positions on dislocation: computed tomographic evaluations in a consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2004; 19: 162–166.
43.
KimYHChoiYKimJS.Influence of patient-, design-, and surgery-related factors on rate of dislocation after primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 1258–1263.
44.
BiedermannRToninAKrismerM, et 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.
45.
DanoffJRBobmanJTCunnG, et al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 506–511.
46.
BerryDJvon KnochMSchleckCD, et 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.
47.
MalkaniALOngKLLauE, et al. Early- and late-term dislocation risk after primary hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 21–25.
48.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrR, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
49.
TannastMKubiak-LangerMLanglotzF, et al. Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res2007; 25: 122–131.
