Effect of changing femoral head diameter on bony and prosthetic jumping angles.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ instrumentation
Computer Simulation
Female
Hip Dislocation
/ etiology
Hip Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Hip Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Design
Range of Motion, Articular
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Impingement distance
Jumping angle
Jumping distance
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
ISSN: 1432-1068
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9518037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
09
08
2018
accepted:
21
10
2018
pubmed:
1
11
2018
medline:
17
7
2019
entrez:
1
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In THA, using a larger femoral head can increase the oscillation angle and jumping distance. However, there have been no reports which indicate precisely how increasing the jumping distance leads to an increase in the angle from impingement to dislocation (jumping angle). In this study, we clarified the jumping angle of various head diameters and its relationship with pelvic morphology. Using a three-dimensional templating system, virtual THA and ROM simulations were performed in 82 patients. We investigated the distance between bony and prosthetic impingement points and the head centre and calculated the jumping angle for various head diameters. We measured various pelvic shapes and length to clarify the relationship between pelvic morphology and impingement distance. Jumping angles were 7.7° ± 3.2°, 12.1° ± 1.6°, 15.4° ± 2.5° and 10.0° ± 3.0° with flexion, internal rotation with 90° flexion (IR), extension and external rotation (ER), respectively, when we used a 22-mm head diameter. Bony jumping angle increased about 0.5°, 0.8°, 1.0° and 0.7° per 2-mm increase in head diameter with flexion, IR, extension and ER. On the other hand, prosthetic jumping angle remained almost stable at about 31°. Impingement distance was related to pelvic morphology in all directions. Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. On the other hand, bony jumping angle was less than prosthetic jumping angle in all cases. Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. Prosthetic impingement angles were stable. In addition, the bony jumping angle was less than the prosthetic jumping angle in all cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In THA, using a larger femoral head can increase the oscillation angle and jumping distance. However, there have been no reports which indicate precisely how increasing the jumping distance leads to an increase in the angle from impingement to dislocation (jumping angle). In this study, we clarified the jumping angle of various head diameters and its relationship with pelvic morphology.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a three-dimensional templating system, virtual THA and ROM simulations were performed in 82 patients. We investigated the distance between bony and prosthetic impingement points and the head centre and calculated the jumping angle for various head diameters. We measured various pelvic shapes and length to clarify the relationship between pelvic morphology and impingement distance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Jumping angles were 7.7° ± 3.2°, 12.1° ± 1.6°, 15.4° ± 2.5° and 10.0° ± 3.0° with flexion, internal rotation with 90° flexion (IR), extension and external rotation (ER), respectively, when we used a 22-mm head diameter. Bony jumping angle increased about 0.5°, 0.8°, 1.0° and 0.7° per 2-mm increase in head diameter with flexion, IR, extension and ER. On the other hand, prosthetic jumping angle remained almost stable at about 31°. Impingement distance was related to pelvic morphology in all directions. Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. On the other hand, bony jumping angle was less than prosthetic jumping angle in all cases.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. Prosthetic impingement angles were stable. In addition, the bony jumping angle was less than the prosthetic jumping angle in all cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30377824
doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2325-5
pii: 10.1007/s00590-018-2325-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
625-632Références
Bone Joint J. 2014 Sep;96-B(9):1202-6
pubmed: 25183591
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Oct;84(10):1788-92
pubmed: 12377909
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Sep;101(5):577-81
pubmed: 26138633
J Biomed Mater Res. 1996 Feb;30(2):181-6
pubmed: 9019482
Int Orthop. 2013 Oct;37(10):1897-903
pubmed: 23860789
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9):2058-63
pubmed: 27012430
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):20-6
pubmed: 12533567
Orthopedics. 2010 Sep 07;33(9):640
pubmed: 20839691
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Feb;23(2):266-72
pubmed: 18280423
Acta Orthop. 2008 Aug;79(4):489-93
pubmed: 18766481
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1021-1028
pubmed: 28990125
Hip Int. 2017 Jul 25;27(4):361-367
pubmed: 28165597
Int Orthop. 2019 Sep;43(9):2057-2063
pubmed: 30251192
Int Orthop. 2007 Aug;31 Suppl 1:S29-33
pubmed: 17661036
HSS J. 2006 Feb;2(1):7-11
pubmed: 18751839
Hip Int. 2017 May 12;27(3):273-280
pubmed: 28165592
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Aug;89(8):1832-42
pubmed: 17671025
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Feb;28(2):309-14
pubmed: 22854346
Bone Joint J. 2017 Sep;99-B(9):1140-1146
pubmed: 28860392
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Dec;476(12):2367-2378
pubmed: 30260863
Z Orthop Unfall. 2014 Apr;152(2):130-43
pubmed: 24760453
Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):23-6
pubmed: 25381403
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Apr;472(4):1240-5
pubmed: 24186469
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):475-480
pubmed: 27826763
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):73-6
pubmed: 19577890
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):509-20
pubmed: 25367107
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):128-33
pubmed: 19122087
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 May;93(5):608-15
pubmed: 21511925
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):102-7
pubmed: 15577473
World J Orthop. 2012 Aug 18;3(8):122-30
pubmed: 22919568