Advertisement

New combined anteversion technique in hybrid THA: cup-first procedure with CT-based navigation

  • Yoshinobu MasumotoEmail author
  • Shigeo Fukunishi
  • Tomokazu Fukui
  • Shinichi Yoshiya
  • Shoji Nishio
  • Yuki Fujihara
  • Shohei Okahisa
  • Taishi Okada
  • Makoto Kanto
  • Ariha Goshi
  • Futoshi Morio
  • Yu Takeda
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Combined anteversion (CA) technique (stem-first procedure) is generally accepted as the optimal technique to attain an appropriate CA value in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, cup anteversion is strongly influenced by the native femoral anteversion. Accordingly, anterior protrusion of the cup in the acetabulum might occur. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the achievement of the optimal CA while avoiding anterior cup protrusion and examine the significance of our new CA technique with cup-first procedure in hybrid THA.

Methods

Seventy-nine hybrid THAs with the cup-first procedure used a CT-based navigation system for cup positioning. In the preoperative planning, cup anteversion was aimed at approximately 20°. However, in actuality, sufficient cup coverage in the original acetabulum based on individual anatomy is given priority over cup placement based on CT-based planning to ensure adequate cup coverage. The target stem anteversion was determined following Widmer’s mathematical formula (37.3 = femoral stem anteversion × 0.7 + cup anteversion). Cemented stem was inserted according to the target stem anteversion angle.

Results

Regarding the assessment of overall alignment, the calculated Widmer’s CA values during surgery and postoperative CT evaluation were 34.1° ± 6.0° (range 20.7°–51.2°) and 35.1° ± 6.7° (range 21.6°–50.7°). There were 72 hips (91.1%) within 25°–50° of CA. Cup protrusion length averaged 2.0 mm ± 2.6 mm (0–8.8 mm) in the axial view and 0.4 mm ± 1.0 mm (0–3.6 mm) in the sagittal view. Cup protrusion length of more than 5 mm was indicated in 10 hips, and no hips observed more than 10 mm.

Conclusion

Our new CA technique (cup-first procedure) with hybrid THA was able to achieve optimal CA value while avoiding anterior cup protrusion.

Keywords

Combined anteversion Hybrid THA CT navigation Cup protrusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (Nishinomiya Kaisei Hospital). The authors thank Mr. Devin Casadey and Miss. Rebecca Imaizumi for their assistance in editing the English manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    McKibbin B (1970) Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br 52(1):148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ranawat CS, Maynard MJ (1991) Modern techniques of cemented total hip arthroplasty. Tech Orthop 6:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF (2007) Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(3):282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoshimine F (2006) 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 Biomech 39:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B (2004) Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res 22(4):815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hisatome T, Doi H (2011) Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement. J Orthop Sci 16(2):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barsoum WK, Patterson RW, Higuera C, Klika AK, Krebs VE, Molloy R (2007) A computer model of the position of the combined component in the prevention of impingement in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(6):839–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amuwa C, Dorr LD (2008) The combined anteversion technique for acetabular component anteversion. J Arthroplasty 23(7):1068–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clini Ortop Relat Res 467(1):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trousadale RT, Cabanela ME, Berry DJ (1995) Anterior iliopsas impingent after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10(4):546–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henderson RA, Lachiewicz PF (2012) Groin pain after replacement of the hip: aetiology, evaluation and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(2):145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cyteval C, Sarrabere MP, Cottin A, Assi C, Morcos L, Maury P, Taourel P (2003) Iliopsoas impingement on the acetabular component: radiologic and computed tomography findings of a rare hip prosthesis complication in eight cases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27(2):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lachiewicz PF, Kauk JR (2009) Anterior iliopsoas impingement and tendinitis after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(6):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park KK, Tsai T-Y, Dimitriou D, Kwon Y-M (2016) Three-dimensional in vivo difference between native acetabular version and acetabular component version influences iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40(9):1807–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ueno T, Kabata T, Kajino Y, Inoue D, Ohmori T, Tsuchiya H (2018) Risk factors and cup protrusion thresholds for symptomatic iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective case–control study. J Arthroplasty 33(10):3288–3296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dora C, Houweling M, Koch P, Sierra RJ (2008) Iliopsoas impingement after total hip replacement. The results of non-operative management, tenotomy or acetabular revision. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL (1948) A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 30(3):745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E (1998) A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22(4):610–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miki H, Yamanashi W, Nishi T, Sato Y, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N (2007) Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by navigation system. J Arthroplasty 22(7):946–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray DW (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(2):228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fujihara Y, Fukunishi S, Nishio S, Takeda Y, Fukui T, Okahisa S, Yoshiya S (2016) Clinical study for the use of G-guide in measurement of stem antetorsion during total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 39(2):e271–e275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujihara Y, Fukunishi S, Fukui T, Nishio S, Takeda Y, Okahisa S, Yoshiya S (2019) Comparison of G-guide and image-free navigation system in accuracy of stem anteversion assessment during total hip arthroplasty. Open Orthop J 13:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kajino Y, Kabata T, Maeda T, Iwai S, Kuroda K, Tsuchiya T (2012) Dose degree of pelvic deformity affect the accuracy of computed tomography-based hip navigation? J Arthroplasty 27(9):1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okada T, Fukunishi S, Takeda Y, Fukui T, Fujihara Y, Okahisa S, Masumoto Y, Yoshiya S (2019) Total hip arthroplasty using stem first technique with navigation: the potential achievement of the optimal combined anteversion being a risk factor for anterior cup protrusion. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29(4):807–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakashima Y, Hirata M, Akiyama M, Itokawa T, Yamamoto T, Motomura G, Ohishi M, Hamai S, Iwamoto Y (2014) Combined anteversion technique reduced the dislocation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fukunishi S, Nishio S, Fujihara Y, Okahisa S, Takeda Y, Fukui T, Yoshiya S (2016) Accuracy of combined anteversion in image-free navigated total hip arthroplasty: stem-first or cup-first technique? Int Orthop 40(1):9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koemer JD, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Sirkin MS, Reilly M, Liporace FA (2013) Femoral version the general population: dose “normal” vary by gender or ethnicity? J Orthop Trauma 27(6):308–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Roguin B, Argenson JN (1997) Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 12(4):444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N, Matsubara M, Harada Y, Ohzono K, Paravic V (2003) Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:27–40Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang J, Wang L, Mao Y, Li H, Ding H, Zhu Z (2014) The use of combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty 29(3):621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS (1998) The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(4):711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Suzuki H, Ike H, Kubota S, Saito T (2016) Preoperative planning for implant placement with consideration of pelvic tilt in total hip arthroplasty: postoperative efficacy evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ueno T, Kabata T, Kajino Y, Ohmori T, Yoshitani J, Ueoka K, Tsuchiya H (2019) Tilt-adjusted cup anteversion in patients with severe backward pelvic tilt is associated with the risk of iliopsoas impingement: a three-dimensional implantation simulation. Clini Orthop Relat Res 477:2243–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tamura S, Nishihara S, Takao M, Sakai T, Miki H, Sugano N (2017) Dose pelvic sagittal inclination in the supine and standing positions change over 10 years follow-up after total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 32(3):877–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tokuhara Y, Kadoya Y, Kim M, Shoundou M, Kanno T, Masuda T (2011) Anterior knee pain after total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 26(6):955–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liska F, Deimling C, Otto A, Willinger L, Kellner R, Imhoff AB, Burgkart R, Voss A (2018) Distal femoral torsional osteotomy increases the contact pressure of the medial patellofemoral joint in biomechanical analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2328–2333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Odri GA, Padiolleau GB, Gouin FT (2014) Oversized cups as a major risk factor of postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(4):753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    May O (2019) Arthroscopic techniques for treating ilio-psoas tendinopathy after hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(1S):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshinobu Masumoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shigeo Fukunishi
    • 2
  • Tomokazu Fukui
    • 2
  • Shinichi Yoshiya
    • 2
  • Shoji Nishio
    • 1
  • Yuki Fujihara
    • 1
  • Shohei Okahisa
    • 1
  • Taishi Okada
    • 1
  • Makoto Kanto
    • 1
  • Ariha Goshi
    • 1
  • Futoshi Morio
    • 1
  • Yu Takeda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHyogo College of MedicineNishinomiyaJapan
  2. 2.Nishinomiya Kaisei HospitalNishinomiyaJapan

Personalised recommendations