Accurate component positioning is the key for successful outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Positioning acetabular and femoral components in a safe zone of 25°–50° on the basis of combined anteversion (CA) has shown to reduce instability and impingement. This safe zone was described for THAs performed through the posterior approach and has not been validated for other surgical approaches.
Seventy patients who underwent unilateral uncemented THA were included in the study; 35 patients—using posterior approach and the remaining 35—using trans-gluteal approach. All patients included had a stable and impingement-free THA at a mean follow-up of 39.2 ± 9.5 months. CT scan was performed to assess component positioning by calculating CA. The values were compared between the two groups to study possible differences.
CA in the trans-gluteal group was significantly lower (32° ± 3.7° vs 38.4° ± 4.6°, P < .001) compared to posterior group. The difference in CA was due to the differences in acetabular anteversion, which was significantly low in the trans-gluteal group than the posterior group (22.1° ± 3.6° vs 27.8° ± 4.2°, P < .001). The mean femoral anteversion was similar in both groups. All trans-gluteal hips fell within the safe zone of 20°–40°, and all posterior hips fell within the safe zone of 25°–50°.
A safe zone of 25°–50° is valid for THAs performed from the posterior approach but not universally applicable. For trans-gluteal approach, a safe zone of 20°–40° is better to provide a stable and impingement-free THA. CA varies with the surgical approach. THAs performed through the trans-gluteal approach can be stable and impingement-free with lesser CA compared to THAs performed through the posterior approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Pierchon F, Pasquier G, Cotten A et al (1994) Causes of dislocation of total hip arthroplasty CT study of component alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(1):45–48
McKibbin B (1970) Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br 52:148–159
Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):119–127
Amuva C, Dorr LD (2008) Combined anteversion technique for acetabular component anteversion. J Arthroplasty 23(7):1068–1070
Fujishiro T, Hayashi S, Kanzaki N et al (2014) Computed tomographic measurement of acetabular and femoral component version in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(5):941–946
Sutherland CJ, Wilde AH, Borden LS, Marks KE (1982) A 10-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Müller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(7):970–982
Wines AP, McNicol D (2006) Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(5):696–701
Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D’Antonio JA (2001) Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:52–65
Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14:231–242
Komeno M, Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Uchida A (2006) Computed tomographic evaluation of component position on dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29:1104–1108
Dorr LD, Wan Z, Malik A, Zhu J, Dastane M, Deshmane P (2009) A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(11):2598–2604
Lucas DH, Scott RD (1994) The Ranawat sign. A specific maneuver to assess component positioning in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Techn 2:59–62
Ranawat CS, Maynard MJ (1991) Modern techniques of cemented total hip arthroplasty. Tech Orthop 6:17–25
Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2011) Components anteversion in primary cementless THA using straight stem and hemispherical cup: a prospective study in 91 hips using CT-scan measurements. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(6):615–621
Jingushi S, Ohfuji S, Sofue M et al (2010) Multi-institutional epidemiological study regarding ostosteoarthritis of the hip in Japan. J Orthop Sci 15(5):626–631
Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF (2002) Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:282–288
Maheswari AV, Zlowodzki MP, Sriram G et al (2010) Femoral neck anteversion, acetabular anteversion and combined anteversion in the normal Indian adult population: a computed tomographic study. Indian J Orthop 44(3):277–282
Conflict of interest
The first author is an editorial board member with (i) Indian Journal of Orthopedics and (ii) European Journal of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology. Other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Informed written consent from all participating patients was obtained.
Our institutional review board approved the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Gavaskar, A., Parthasarathy, S., Balamurugan, J. et al. Choice of surgical approach influences the combined anteversion needed for a stable and impingement-free total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02837-6
- Hip arthroplasty
- Component positioning
- Combined anteversion
- Acetabular version