Which Safe Zone Is Safe in Total Hip Arthroplasty? The Effect of Bony Impingement.
bony impingement
combined anteversion
safe zone
total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 May 2022
18 May 2022
Historique:
received:
03
04
2022
revised:
12
05
2022
accepted:
14
05
2022
entrez:
28
5
2022
pubmed:
29
5
2022
medline:
29
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
"Safe zones" for cup position are currently being investigated in total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of bony impingement on the safe zone and provide recommendations for cup position in THA. CT scans were performed on 123 patients who underwent a cementless THA. Using the implant data and bone morphology from the CT scans, an impingement detection algorithm simulating range of motion (ROM) determined the presence of prosthetic and/or bony impingement. An impingement-free zone of motion was determined for each patient. These zones were then compared across all patients to establish an optimized impingement-free "safe zone". Bony impingement reduced the impingement-free zone of motion in 49.6% (61/123) of patients. A mean reduction of 23.4% in safe zone size was observed in relation to periprosthetic impingement. The superposition of the safe zones showed the highest probability of impingement-free ROM with cup position angles within 40-50° of inclination and 20-30° of anteversion in relation to the applied cup and stem design of this study. Virtual ROM simulations identified bony impingement at the anterosuperior acetabular rim for internal rotation at 90° of flexion and at the posteroinferior rim for adduction as the main reasons for bony impingement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35629234
pii: jpm12050812
doi: 10.3390/jpm12050812
pmc: PMC9147368
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
ID : 01EZ091
Références
Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007 Jan-Feb;9(1):46-51
pubmed: 17514174
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2011 Aug;225(8):769-82
pubmed: 21922954
Bone Joint J. 2015 Jul;97-B(7):890-8
pubmed: 26130342
Int Orthop. 2016 Dec;40(12):2495-2504
pubmed: 27106215
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Apr;17(3):282-8
pubmed: 11938502
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Aug 19;12:192
pubmed: 21854588
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Mar;60(2):217-20
pubmed: 641088
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Jan;30(1):109-13
pubmed: 25249516
J Orthop Res. 2016 Nov;34(11):2025-2030
pubmed: 26896752
Acta Orthop. 2010 Oct;81(5):579-82
pubmed: 20919811
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Dec;465:180-4
pubmed: 18090472
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Oct;472(10):3150-8
pubmed: 24964886
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):128-33
pubmed: 19122087
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):431-435
pubmed: 28965944
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7):946-52
pubmed: 17920464
Bone Joint J. 2015 Mar;97-B(3):306-11
pubmed: 25737512
J Pers Med. 2021 Aug 21;11(8):
pubmed: 34442461
J Orthop Res. 2022 Apr;40(4):846-853
pubmed: 34057752
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jun;87(3):225-30
pubmed: 26848628
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):196-203
pubmed: 27604584
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Feb;474(2):386-91
pubmed: 26150264
J Orthop Res. 2004 Jul;22(4):815-21
pubmed: 15183439
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2012 Dec;226(12):911-8
pubmed: 23636954
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20(4):427-35
pubmed: 16124957