Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of a modular neck hip prosthesis on anteversion and hip rotation in total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip

  • Original Article
  • Artificial Skin, Muscle, Bone / Joint, Neuron
  • Published:
Journal of Artificial Organs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often required to decrease the excessive anatomical femoral anteversion (AA) in developmental dysplasia of the hip. Studies have recommended decreasing the AA via the use of a retroverted modular neck. However, hip rotation after THA may strengthen or weaken the effect of changing the AA. Thus, the present study analyzed the effect of a retroverted neck on AA and hip rotation. Patients who underwent THA using a straight neck (ST group) or a 15° retroverted neck (RV group) in a version changeable dual modular system (Mainstay stem, Kyocera, Kyoto, Japan) were retrospectively reviewed. After matching for age, body mass index, and surgical approach, 44 patients were included in each group. The AA and hip rotation (femoral rotational angle: FRA) were measured on CT images acquired preoperatively and 1 month after THA, and were compared between the groups. The mean ± standard deviation preoperative AA of the ST group (26.1 ± 10.7°) was significantly smaller than that of the RV group (44.2 ± 7.8°) (p < 0.001). In contrast, the postoperative AA did not significantly differ between the groups (ST group 27.5 ± 9.8°, RV group 25.1 ± 8.3°, p = 0.406). The change in FRA after THA did not significantly differ between the groups (ST group − 3.8 ± 9.9°, RV group − 3.5 ± 9.1°, p = 0.841). In conclusion, a 15° retroverted neck was useful in controlling AA in hips with excessive AA, and the change in FRA after THA did not differ between the ST group and the RV group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS. The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1998;80:711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Li H, Wang Y, Oni JK, Qu X, Li T, Zeng Y, Liu F, Zhu Z. The role of femoral neck anteversion in the development of osteoarthritis in dysplastic hips. Bone Jt J. 2014;96:1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turley GA, Griffin DR, Williams MA. Effect of femoral neck modularity upon the prosthetic range of motion in total hip arthroplasty. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2014;52:685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sakai T, Ohzono K, Nishii T, Miki H, Takao M, Sugano N. A modular femoral neck and head system works well in cementless total hip replacement for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2010;92:770.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Takao M, Ohzono K, Nishii T, Miki H, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Cementless modular total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy for hips with developmental dysplasia. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2011;93:548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biant LC, Bruce WJ, Assini JB, Walker PM, Walsh WR. Primary total hip arthroplasty in severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ten-year results using a cementless modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Uemura K, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Sugano N. The validity of using the posterior condylar line as a rotational reference for the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Uemura K, Atkins PR, Fiorentino NM, Anderson AE. Hip rotation during standing and dynamic activities and the compensatory effect of femoral anteversion: an in-vivo analysis of asymptomatic young adults using three-dimensional computed tomography models and dual fluoroscopy. Gait Posture. 2018;61:276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Akiyama K, Nakata K, Kitada M, Yamamura M, Ohori T, Owaki H, Fuji T. Changes in axial alignment of the ipsilateral hip and knee after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt J. 2016;98:349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sugano N, Tsuda K, Miki H, Takao M, Suzuki N, Nakamura N. Dynamic measurements of hip movement in deep bending activities after total hip arthroplasty using a 4-dimensional motion analysis system. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1948;30:745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E. A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22:610.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Uemura K, Takao M, Otake Y, Koyama K, Yokota F, Hamada H, Sakai T, Sato Y, Sugano N. Can anatomic measurements of stem anteversion angle be considered as the functional anteversion angle? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Uemura K, Takao M, Hamada H, Sakai T, Sugano N. Change in axial rotation of the femur in the resting supine position following total hip arthroplasty. Artif Organs. 2018;42:290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abe H, Sakai T, Takao M, Nishii T, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Difference in stem alignment between the direct anterior approach and the posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miki H, Kyo T, Sugano N. Anatomical hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty with a large change in pelvic inclination. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miki H, Sugano N. Modular neck for prevention of prosthetic impingement in cases with excessively anteverted femur. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011;26:944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakai T, Sugano N, Ohzono K, Nishii T, Haraguchi K, Yoshikawa H. Femoral anteversion, femoral offset, and abductor lever arm after total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral neck system. J Orthop Sci. 2002;7:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arnold AS, Komattu AV, Delp SL. Internal rotation gait: a compensatory mechanism to restore abduction capacity decreased by bone deformity. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Colas S, Allalou A, Poichotte A, Piriou P, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Exchangeable femoral neck (dual-modular) THA prostheses have poorer survivorship than other designs: a nationwide cohort of 324,108 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Graves SE, de Steiger R, Davidson D, Donnelly W, Rainbird S, Lorimer MF, Cashman KS, Vial RJ. The use of femoral stems with exchangeable necks in primary total hip arthroplasty increases the rate of revision. Bone Jt J. 2017;99:766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Keisuke Uemura or Nobuhiko Sugano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that Kyocera partially funds the department, which has no relevance to the study conducted herein.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakahara, E., Uemura, K., Ando, W. et al. Effect of a modular neck hip prosthesis on anteversion and hip rotation in total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Artif Organs 23, 255–261 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-020-01162-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-020-01162-3

Keywords

Navigation