HSS Journal

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 94–99 | Cite as

Radiostereometric Analysis: The Hip

  • F. Bottner
  • E. Su
  • B. Nestor
  • B. Azzis
  • T. P. Sculco
  • M. Bostrom
Original Article
Radiostereometric analysis is an accurate method of determining the migration and wear of orthopaedic implants such as total hip arthroplasties. While the overall concept of RSA is relatively straightforward: determining the precise location of two distinct objects relative to each other in three dimension such as the relative position of the femoral component and the proximal femur, the actual practical application is somewhat more complex. In radiostereometric analysis the position in space of the original object is reconstructed from a two dimensional x-ray film (Fig.  1). In order to reconstruct the position of segments within the human body, each segment is marked with at least three tantalum beads. Movement between segments is then calculated by localizing each segment in a coordinate system.


Rigid Body Femoral Component Acetabular Component Bone Ingrowth Trabecular Metal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Davidson M (1898) Roentgen rays and localization. An apparatus for exact measurement and localization by means of roentgen rays. Brit Med J 10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Selvik, G 1989Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal systemActa Orthop Scand232151Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryd, L, Yuan, X, Lofgren, H 2000Methods for determining the accuracy of radiostereometric analysisActa Orthop Scand71403408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sutherland, CJ, Wilde, AH, Borden, LS, Marks, KE 1982A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Müller curved-stem total hip replacement arthroplastiesJ Bone Jt Surg64-A970982Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malchau, H, Kärrholm, J, Wang, YX, Herberts, P 1995Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty: digitized and conventional radiography, compared to radiostereometry in 51 patientsActa Orthop Scand66418424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biedermann, R, Krismer, M, Stöckl, B, Mayrhofer, P, Ornstein, E, Franzen, H 1999Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacementJ Bone Jt Surg81-B266272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soballe, K, Toksvig-Larsen, S, Gelineck, J, Fruensgaard, S, Hansen, ES, Ryd, L, Lucht, U, Bünger, C 1993Migration of hydroxyapatite coated femoral prostheses. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric studyJ Bone Jt Surg75-B681687Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Önsten, I, Berzins, A, Shott, S, Sumner, DR 2001Accuracy and precision of radiostereometric analysis in the measurement of THR femoral component translations: human and canine in vitro modelsJ Orthop Res1911621167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mjoberg, B 1986Loosening of the cemented hip prosthesis. Theimportance of head injuryActa Orthop Scand221 140Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryd, L 1992Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of prosthetic fixation in the hip and knee jointClin Ortop2765665Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kärrholm, J, Borssen, B, Lowenhielm, G, Snorrason, F 1994Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter: 4–7 year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prosthesesJ Bone Jt Surg76-B912917Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huiskes, R, Verdonschot, N, Nivbrant, B 1998Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplastyClin Ortop355103112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dall, DM, Learmonth, ID, Solomon, MI, Miles, AW, Davenport, JM 1993Fracture and loosening of charnley femoral stemsJ Bone Jt Surg75-B259265Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rockborn, P, Olsson, SS 1993Loosening and bone resorption in Exeter hip arthroplasties. Review at a minimum of five yearsJ Bone Jt Surg75-B865868Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stefansdottir, A, Franzen, H, Johnsson, R, Ornstein, E, Sundberg, M 2004Movement pattern of the Exeter femoral stem. A radiostereometric analysis of 22 primary hip arthroplasties followed for 5 yearsActa Orthop Scand75408414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kärrholm, J, Malchau, H, Snorrason, F, Herberts, P 1994Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplastyJ Bone Jt Surg76-A16921705Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamadouche, M, Witvoet, J, Porcher, R, Meunier, A, Sedel, L, Nizard, R 2001Hydroxyapatite-coated versus grit-blasted femoral stems. A prospective randomized study using EBRA-FCAJ Bone Jt Surg83-B979987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo, E, Cruz-Pardos, A, Madero, R, Ortega-Andreu, M 2003Total hip arthroplasty with use of the cementless Zweymüller Alloclassic system. A ten to thirteen year follow-up studyJ Bone Jt Surg85-A296303Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grübl, A, Chiari, C, Gruber, M, Kaider, A, Gottsauner-Wolf, F 2002Cementless total hip arthroplasty with a tapered, rectangular titanium stem and a threaded cup. A minimum ten-year follow-upJ Bone Jt Surg84-A425431Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Healy, WL, Casey, DJ, Iorio, R, Appleby, D 2002Evaluation of the porous-coated anatomic hip at 12 yearsJ Arthroplast17856863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kawamura, H, Dunbar, MJ, Murray, P, Bourne, RB, Rorabeck, CH 2001The porous coated anatomic total hip replacment. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study of a cementless total hip arthroplastyJ Bone Jt Surg83-A13331338Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keisu, KS, Orozco, F, Sharkey, PF, Hozack, WJ, Rothman, RH, McGurgan, FX 2001Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. Two to eleven-year follow-upJ Bone Jt Surg83-A359363Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, YH 2002Bilateral cemented and cementless total hip arthroplastyJ Arthroplast17434440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nercessian, OA, Wu, WH, Sarkissian, H 2001Clinical and radiographic results of cementless AML total hip arthroplasty in young patientsJ Arthroplast16312316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanzer, M, Chan, S, Brooks, CE, Bobyn, JD 2001Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral component. A minimum 6-year follow-upJ Arthroplast166470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, YH, Oh, SH, Kim, JS 2003Primary total hip arthroplasty with a second generation cementless total hip prosthesis in patients younger than fifty years of ageJ Bone Jt Surg85-A109114Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keisu, KS, Orozco, F, McCallum, JD, Bissett, G, Hozack, WJ, Sharkey, PF, Rothman, RH 2001Cementless femoral fixation in the rheumatoid patient undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Minimum 5-year resultsJ Arthroplast16415421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bottner F, Zawadsky M, Su E, Bostrom M, Palm L, Ryd L, Sculco TP (2005) The impact of the weight bearing protocol on implant migration after cementless total hip arthroplasty. A radistereometric analysis. Clin Ortop (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rorabeck, CH, Bourne, RB, Mulliken, BD, Nayak, N, Laupacis, A, Tugwell, P, Feeney, D 1996The Nicolas Andry Award. Comparative results of cemented and cementless total hip arthroplastyClin Ortop325330344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thanner, J 1999The acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation of different fixation principlesActa Orthop Scand286141Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hacking, SA, Bobyn, JD, Tanzer, M, Krygier, JJ 1999The osseous response to corundum blasted implant surfaces in canine total hip arthroplasty modelClin Ortop364240253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang, Y, Ahn, PB, Fitzpatrick, DC, Heiner, AD, Poggie, RA, Brown, TD 1999Interfacial frictional behavior: cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum biomaterialJ Musculoskelet Res3245251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bobyn, JD, Stackpool, GJ, Hacking, SA, Tanzer, M, Krygier, JJ 1999Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterialJ Bone Jt Surg81-B907914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amstutz, HC 2000Innovations in design and technology: the story of hip arthroplastyClin Ortop3782330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amstutz, HC, Dorey, F, O’Carroll, PF 1986THARIS resurfacing arthroplasty. Evolution and long-term resultsClin Ortop21392114Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ritter, MA, Gioe, TJ 1986Conventional versus resurfacing total hip arthroplasty. A long-term prospective study of concomitant bilateral implantation of prosthesesJ Bone Jt Surg68-A216225Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tracy, RB, McBryde, CW, Pynsent, PB 2005Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five yearsJ Bone Jt Surg87-B167170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Glyn-Jones, S, Gill, HS, McLardy-Smith, , Murray, DW 2004Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A two year studyJ Bone Jt Surg86-B172176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Itayem, R, Arndt, A, Nistor, L, McMinn, D, Lundberg, A 2005Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two yearsJ Bone Jt Surg87-B158162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Bottner
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Su
    • 1
  • B. Nestor
    • 1
  • B. Azzis
    • 1
  • T. P. Sculco
    • 1
  • M. Bostrom
    • 1
  1. 1.Hospital for Special SurgeryCornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsMuenster UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations