Advertisement

Intraoperative measurement of cup inclination using fluoroscopy requires a correction factor

  • Kilian Rueckl
  • Diego J. Alcaide
  • Bernhard Springer
  • Stefan Rueckl
  • Maximilian F. Kasparek
  • Friedrich BoettnerEmail author
Orthopaedic Surgery
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Malpositioning of the cup in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with dislocation, early polyethylene wear, and impingement. The direct anterior approach (DAA) THA allows for intraoperative fluoroscopy imaging (IF). The current study investigates the following research hypotheses: (1) intraoperative measurements of radiographic cup inclination (RI) are reliable and reproducible. (2) A correction factor can compensate for the complex parallax effects when using IF.

Methods

In 2016, 100 consecutive hips underwent primary THA utilizing DAA and IF for cup placement. RI was measured on intraoperative fluoroscopy images and postoperative AP pelvis radiographs.

Results

Determination of RI on IF images is reliable and reproducible (ICC 0.851–0.950). RI measurement on IF images had a good correlation with the corresponding postoperative RI on AP pelvis radiographs (r = 0.538, p < 0.001). However, intraoperative RI measurements are on average 4.9° lower compared to postoperative measurements (SD 2.5°).

Conclusion

Intraoperative fluoroscopy is a reliable tool to measure RI during DAA THA. The surgeon needs to apply a 5°. correction factor to the intraoperative measurements to adjust for parallax.

Keywords

THA Cup positioning Intraoperative fluoroscopy Inclination 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Boettner F, Zingg M, Emara AK, Waldstein W, Faschingbauer M, Kasparek MF (2016) The accuracy of acetabular component position using a novel method to determine anteversion. J Arthroplast 32(4): 1180–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan YH (2003) Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap Med J 44(12):614–619Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Craiovan B, Weber M, Worlicek M et al (2016) Measuring acetabular cup orientation on Antero-Posterior radiographs of the hip after total hip arthroplasty with a vector arithmetic radiological method. Is it valid and verified for daily clinical practice? Rofo 188(6):574–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derbyshire B (2008) Correction of acetabular cup orientation measurements for X-ray beam offset. Med Eng Phys 30(9):1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dora C, Houweling M, Koch P, Sierra RJ (2007) Iliopsoas impingement after total hip replacement: the results of non-operative management, tenotomy or acetabular revision. J Bone Jt Surg Brit Vol 89(8):1031–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Falliner A, Muhle C, Brossmann J (2002) Acetabular inclination and anteversion in infants using 3D MR imaging. Acta Radiologica, 43(2):221–224 (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41(4):1149–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goergen TG, Resnick D (1975) Evaluation of acetabular anteversion following total hip arthroplasty: necessity of proper centring. Br J Radiol 48(568):259–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ (1998) Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplast 13(5):530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lembeck B, Mueller O, Reize P, Wuelker N (2005) Pelvic tilt makes acetabular cup navigation inaccurate. Acta Orthopaedica 76(4):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 60(2):217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu M, Zhou YX, Du H, Zhang J, Liu J (2013) Reliability and validity of measuring acetabular component orientation by plain anteroposterior radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(9):2987–2994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maratt JD, Esposito CI, McLawhorn AS, Jerabek SA, Padgett DE, Mayman DJ (2015) Pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: when does it matter? J Arthroplast 30(3):387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McArthur B, Cross M, Geatrakas C, Mayman D, Ghelman B (2012) Measuring acetabular component version after THA: CT or plain radiograph? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(10):2810–2818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murray DW (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Jt Surg Brit Vol 75(2):228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross JR, Tannenbaum EP, Nepple JJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A (2015) Functional acetabular orientation varies between supine and standing radiographs: implications for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1267–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saxler G, Marx A, Vandevelde D et al (2004) The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning—a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop 28(4):198–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrading S, Schulze A (2016) Preoperative diagnostic imaging and planning. Der Orthopade 45(8):644–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwarz T, Weber M, Worner M, Renkawitz T, Grifka J, Craiovan B (2017) Central X-ray beam correction of radiographic acetabular cup measurement after THA: an experimental study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12(5):829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA (2006) Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays—a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol 35(3):149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thoren B, Sahlstedt B (1990) Influence of pelvic position on radiographic measurements of the prosthetic acetabular component. An experimental study on a pelvic model. Acta Radiol 31(2):133–136 (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waldstein W, Merle C, Schmidt-Braekling T, Boettner F (2014) Does stem design influence component positioning in total hip arthroplasty using a minimal invasive posterolateral approach? Int Orthop 38(7):1347–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Widmer KH (2004) A simplified method to determine acetabular cup anteversion from plain radiographs. J Arthroplast 19(3):387–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Vienna General HospitalMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations