Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital comparison of planned and implanted stem position in total hip replacement using a program form migration analysis

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

One main goal in primary total hip replacement is the reconstruction of preoperative biomechanical conditions by adequate implant positioning. Our aim was to compare the planned and effectively implanted stem position in using a program for digital migration measurement.

Patients

We examined 120 cases with this new method based on a modification of the EBRA-FCA program and compared these results to direct plain radiographic methods. In addition, the intra- and inter-observer reliability was determined in 50 cases.

Results

We observed a rate of correct prediction of 80% for the size of the stem. The new method revealed a good correlation (0.95 and 0.64 for the position along the stem axis and 0.84 for the stem angle) to direct plain radiographic methods. Regarding the intraclass correlation coefficient for intra- and inter-observer reliability, the results were superior (0.97 vs. 0.81–0.84 and 0.90 vs. 0.74–0.88) compared with direct plain radiographic methods.

Conclusion

We concluded that the comparison of the planned and implanted stem position using a modified EBRA-FCA method is more reproducible than direct radiographic measurements.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Muller ME (1992) Lessons of 30 years of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 274:12–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bono JV (2004) Digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:118–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eggli S, Pisan M, Muller ME (1998) The value of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80-B:382–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubash HE, Parvataneni HK (2007) The pants too short, the leg too long: leg length inequality after THA. Orthopedics 30(9):764–765

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(4):414–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Crooijmans HJ, Laumen AM, van Pul C, van Mourik JB (2009) A new digital preoperative planning method for total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(4):909–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gonzalez Della Valle A, Padgett DE, Salvati EA (2005) Preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13:455

    Google Scholar 

  8. González Della Valle A, Slullitel G, Piccaluga F, Salvati EA (2005) The precision and usefulness of preoperative planning for cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(1):51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iorio R, Siegel J, Specht LM, Tilzey JF, Hartman A, Healy WL (2009) A comparison of acetate vs digital templating for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty: is digital templating accurate and safe? J Arthroplasty 24(2):175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. The B, Verdonschot N, van Horn JR, van Ooijen PM, Diercks RL (2007) Digital versus analogue preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasties: a randomized clinical trial of 210 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 22(6):866–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter LW, Stovall DO, Young TR (1995) Determination of accuracy of preoperative templating of noncemented femoral prostheses. J Arthroplasty 10:507–513

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Davila JA, Kransdorf MJ, Duffy GP (2006) Surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty: accuracy of computer-assisted EndoMap software in predicting component size. Skeletal Radiol 35(6):390–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar PG, Kirmani SJ, Humberg H, Kavarthapu V, Li P (2009) Reproducibility and accuracy of templating uncemented THA with digital radiographic and digital TraumaCad templating software. Orthopedics 32(11):815

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Khanduja V, Tek V, Scott G (2006) The effect of a neck-retaining femoral implant on leg-length inequality following total hip arthroplasty: a radiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(6):712–715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Suh KT, Cheon SJ, Kim DW (2004) Comparison of preoperative templating with postoperative assessment in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 75:40–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Malchau H, Karrholm J, WangYX HerbertsP (1995) Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty: digitised and conventional radiography, compared to radiostereometry in 51 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 66:418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sutherland CJ, Wilde AH, Borden LS, Marks KE (1982) A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Muller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:970

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Krismer M, Bauer R, Tschupik J, Mayrhofer P (1995) EBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components. J Biomech 28:1225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Krismer M, Biedermann R, Stöckl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Haid C (1999) The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Biedermann R, Krismer M, Stockl B, Mayrhofer P, Ornstein E, Franzen H (1999) Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips NJ, Stockley I, Wilkinson JM (2002) Direct plain radiographic methods versus EBRA-Digital for measuring implant migration after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):917–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I (2010) A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):136–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64(1):17–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hamadouche M, Witvoet J, Porcher R, Meunier A, Sedel L, Nizard R (2001) Hydroxyapatite-coated versus grit-blasted femoral stems. A prospective, randomised study using EBRA-FCA. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(7):979–987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kroell A, Beaulé P, Krismer M, Behensky H, Stoeckl B, Biedermann R (2009) Aseptic stem loosening in primary THA: migration analysis of cemented and cementless fixation. Int Orthop 33(6):1501–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wedemeyer C, Quitmann H, Xu J, Heep H, von Knoch M, Saxler G (2008) Digital templating in total hip arthroplasty with the Mayo stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1023–1029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkinson JM, Hamer AJ, Elson RA, Stockley I, Eastell R (2002) Precision of EBRA-Digital software for monitoring implant migration after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):910–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Naito M, Ogata K, Asayama I (1999) Intraoperative limb length measurement in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 23:31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sarin VK, Pratt WR, Bradley GW (2005) Accurate femur repositioning is critical during intraoperative total hip arthroplasty length and offset assessment. J Arthroplasty 20(7):887–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistr 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Andreas Fottner, Arnd Steinbrück, Patrick Sadoghi, Farhad Mazoochian & Volkmar Jansson

Authors
  1. Andreas Fottner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnd Steinbrück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Sadoghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farhad Mazoochian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Volkmar Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Fottner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fottner, A., Steinbrück, A., Sadoghi, P. et al. Digital comparison of planned and implanted stem position in total hip replacement using a program form migration analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131, 1013–1019 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1256-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1256-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation