Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 254–260 | Cite as

Kinematic radiography of the hip joint after hip resurfacing arthroplasty

  • Hiroki Kawashima
  • Yoshitomo Kajino
  • Tamon Kabata
  • Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
  • Shigeru Sanada
  • Katsuhiro Ichikawa


This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of dynamic radiography using a dynamic flat-panel detector (FPD) system after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). A total of 32 hips of 26 patients who underwent HRA were included. Sequential images of active abduction in the supine position and flexion in the 45° semilateral position were obtained using the FPD system. We examined the imaging findings of impingement between the acetabular component and femoral neck with cooperative motion at maximal exercise. Moreover, the central component coordinate of the acetabulum and femoral head sides was measured. For abduction motion, impingement was detected in two (6.3 %) hips between the superior portion of the femoral neck and acetabular component. For flexion motion, impingement was detected in 19 (59.4 %) hips. There were no findings of subluxation between the acetabular component and femoral neck after impingement, but cooperative motion of lumbar and pelvic flexion was observed. There was no significant difference in the center-to-center distance regardless of the presence or absence of impingement. Detailed postoperative kinematics of the hips after HRA showed that the proposed dynamic FPD system could reveal acquired impingement and cooperative motion as dynamic images and possibly reveal findings that would be unobservable using static images.


Hip joint Hip resurfacing arthroplasty Flat-panel detector Kinematics Dynamic radiography 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study was supported in part by a research grant from Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan.


  1. 1.
    Ball ST, Schmalzried TP. Posterior femoroacetabular impingement (PFAI)—after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Bull NYU Jt Dis. 2009;67(2):173–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quesada MJ, Marker DR, Mont MA. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplast. 2008;23(7 Suppl):69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen Z, Pandit H, Taylor A, Gill H, Murray D, Ostlere S. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacings—a radiological perspective. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):485–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McMinn DJ, Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):231–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2005;87(3):324–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hing CB, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Bailey M, Back DL, Shimmin AJ. Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2007;89(8):1019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shimmin A, Beaule PE, Campbell P. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2008;90(3):637–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahman L, Hall-Craggs M, Muirhead-Allwood SK. Radiology of the resurfaced hip. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40(7):819–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoo MC, Cho YJ, Chun YS, Rhyu KH. Impingement between the acetabular cup and the femoral neck after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 2):99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malviya A, Lingard EA, Malik A, Bowman R, Holland JP. Hip flexion after Birmingham hip resurfacing: role of cup anteversion, anterior femoral head-neck offset, and head-neck ratio. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(3):387–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruen TA, Le Duff MJ, Wisk LE, Amstutz HC. Prevalence and clinical relevance of radiographic signs of impingement in metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2011;93(16):1519–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kajino Y, Kabata T, Maeda T, Iawai S, Kuroda K, Fujita K, Tsuchiya H. Strict component positioning is necessary in hip resurfacing. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18(2):290–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawashima H, Tada K, Suganuma S, Tsuchiya H, Sanada S. Wrist rhythm during wrist joint motion evaluated by dynamic radiography. Hand Surg. 2014;19(3):343–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tada K, Kawashima H, Horie K, Sanada S, Nishimura S, Tsuchiya H. An in vivo study of dynamic effects of wrist traction on the radiolunate and capitolunate joints. Hand Ther. 2015;20(2):49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koyanagi J, Sakai T, Yamazaki T, Watanabe T, Akiyama K, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K. In vivo kinematic analysis of squatting after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2011;26(5):477–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dimitriou D, Tsai TY, Li JS, Nam KW, Park KK, Kwon YM. In vivo kinematic evaluation of total hip arthroplasty during stair climbing. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(7):1087–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kluess D, Martin H, Mittelmeier W, Schmitz KP, Bader R. Influence of femoral head size on impingement, dislocation and stress distribution in total hip replacement. Med Eng Phys. 2007;29(4):465–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroki Kawashima
    • 1
  • Yoshitomo Kajino
    • 2
  • Tamon Kabata
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
    • 2
  • Shigeru Sanada
    • 1
  • Katsuhiro Ichikawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical ScienceKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan

Personalised recommendations