Is Combined Anteversion Equally Affected by Acetabular Cup and Femoral Stem Anteversion?
acetabular implant anteversion
combined anteversion
femoral stem anteversion
hip-spine relation
sagittal pelvic tilt
total hip arthroplasty
Journal
The Journal of arthroplasty
ISSN: 1532-8406
Titre abrégé: J Arthroplasty
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
04
11
2020
revised:
16
01
2021
accepted:
04
02
2021
pubmed:
4
3
2021
medline:
1
7
2021
entrez:
3
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To create a safe zone, an understanding of the combined femoral and acetabular mating during hip motion is required. We investigated the position of the femoral head inside the acetabular liner during simulated hip motion. We hypothesized that cup and stem anteversions do not equally affect hip motion and combined hip anteversion. Hip implant motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting, and pivoting positions using the MATLAB software. A line passing through the center of the stem neck and the center of the prosthetic head exits at the polar axis (PA) of the prosthetic head. When the prosthetic head and liner are parallel, the PA faces the center of the liner (PA position = 0, 0). By simulating hip motion in 1-degree increments, the maximum distance of the PA from the liner center and the direction of its movement were measured (polar coordination system). The effect of modifying cup and stem anteversion on the direction and distance of the PA's change inside the acetabular liner was different. Stem anteversion influenced the PA position inside the liner more than cup anteversion during sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward (P = .0001). This effect was evident even when comparing stems with different neck angles (P = .0001). Cup anteversion, stem anteversion, and stem neck-shaft angle affected the PA position inside the liner and combined anteversion in different ways. Thus, focusing on cup orientation alone when assessing hip motion during different daily activities is inadequate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To create a safe zone, an understanding of the combined femoral and acetabular mating during hip motion is required. We investigated the position of the femoral head inside the acetabular liner during simulated hip motion. We hypothesized that cup and stem anteversions do not equally affect hip motion and combined hip anteversion.
METHODS
Hip implant motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting, and pivoting positions using the MATLAB software. A line passing through the center of the stem neck and the center of the prosthetic head exits at the polar axis (PA) of the prosthetic head. When the prosthetic head and liner are parallel, the PA faces the center of the liner (PA position = 0, 0). By simulating hip motion in 1-degree increments, the maximum distance of the PA from the liner center and the direction of its movement were measured (polar coordination system).
RESULTS
The effect of modifying cup and stem anteversion on the direction and distance of the PA's change inside the acetabular liner was different. Stem anteversion influenced the PA position inside the liner more than cup anteversion during sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward (P = .0001). This effect was evident even when comparing stems with different neck angles (P = .0001).
CONCLUSION
Cup anteversion, stem anteversion, and stem neck-shaft angle affected the PA position inside the liner and combined anteversion in different ways. Thus, focusing on cup orientation alone when assessing hip motion during different daily activities is inadequate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33653630
pii: S0883-5403(21)00143-1
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.017
pmc: PMC8197737
mid: NIHMS1671946
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2393-2401Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : K08 AR073933
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970 Feb;52(1):148-59
pubmed: 5436200
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Nov;89(11):2508-18
pubmed: 17974896
Open Orthop J. 2015 Feb 27;9:26-44
pubmed: 25861404
Orthopedics. 2006 Dec;29(12):1104-8
pubmed: 17190169
Int Orthop. 2016 Dec;40(12):2495-2504
pubmed: 27106215
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Apr;17(3):282-8
pubmed: 11938502
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Aug;89(8):1832-42
pubmed: 17671025
J Orthop Sci. 2019 May;24(3):474-481
pubmed: 30554937
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Sep 19;100(18):1606-1615
pubmed: 30234627
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jan;99-B(1 Supple A):37-45
pubmed: 28042117
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Apr;19(3):387-90
pubmed: 15067657
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Nov;32(11):3550-3556
pubmed: 28697862
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jan;34(1):3-8
pubmed: 30454867
Orthopedics. 2008 Sep;31(9):898-9
pubmed: 18814605
J Orthop Sci. 2011 Mar;16(2):229-37
pubmed: 21359509
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jul;101-B(7):808-816
pubmed: 31256658
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):291-296
pubmed: 28939031
J Biomech. 2006;39(7):1315-23
pubmed: 15894324
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Feb;468(2):571-5
pubmed: 19714387
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Aug;478(8):1904-1918
pubmed: 32732575
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7S):S53-S56
pubmed: 30773360
J Orthop Res. 2004 Jul;22(4):815-21
pubmed: 15183439
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Jun 18;96(12):978-986
pubmed: 24951732