Femoral offset restoration is related to low rates of wear and dislocation. Replication of the native hip anatomy improves prosthesis survival, whereas increasing the femoral offset elevates the torque stresses, thus inducing a risk of suboptimal stem fixation. Although the Corail (DePuy Synthes, St Priest, France) uncemented stem has an excellent record of fixation, an unexpectedly number of aseptic loosenings has been noted in our institution. We sought to characterize the clinical parameters observed in a group of patients who have experienced metaphyseal aseptic loosenings with the collarless version of the Corail uncemented femoral component; describe the radiographic findings in this group of patients; expose the intraoperative findings in the cases that needed revision surgery and to calculate a possible frequency of this complication. We present a series of 15 metaphyseal debondings of the collarless version of the Corail uncemented stem in primary total hip arthroplasty. Eleven men and four woman with an average age of 60 years old (range: 42 to 81 years old) and a previous history of osteoarthritis presented with thigh pain and limping at an average of 33 months postoperative (range: 5 to 100 months). Seven cases presented a Dorr´s classification type A femur and 8 cases a type B femur. In 10 of the 15 cases a 36 mm ceramic on ceramic bearing surface was implanted and in 5 a 28 mm diameter ceramic on polyethylene pair. Radiographic assessment of the failures evidenced an increase in femoral offset of 6.2 mm in average (range: 0 to 17 mm). Nine of the 15 cases had a standard offset stem and 3 an extended offset stem. Leg length discrepancy was in average 2.4 mm (range: 0 to 8 mm). None of the failures presented a more than 2 mm subsidence. Alignment of these stems was in average 2.1 degrees of varus (range: 0 to 5 degrees). Six cases were revised to a long cemented or uncemented stem, 2 cases were lost and 7 cases are awaiting revision surgery. Although the incidence of this complication was low (15 failures in 855 cases in 10 years = 1.75%), we are concerned about the real magnitude of this problem, as this mode of failure was observed up to 8 years after implantation. Enhanced lateralization of the hip, independently of the type of stem, may have played a role in the infrequent early failures of this popular design. Routine use of “fine tunning” preoperative planning in order to avoid offset enhancement is strongly reccommended, as this was the only suspected factor that was present in almost all the failures we observed

The 3D interplay between femoral component placement on contact stresses and range of motion of hip resurfacing was investigated with a hip model. Pre- and post-operative contours of the bone geometry and the gluteus medius were obtained from grey-value CT-segmentations. The joint contact forces and stresses were simulated for variations in component placement during a normal gait. The effect of component placement on range of motion was determined with a collision model. The contact forces were not increased with optimal component placement due to the compensatory effect of the medialisation of the center of rotation. However, the total range of motion decreased by 33%. Accumulative displacements of the femoral and acetabular center of rotation could increase the contact stresses between 5–24%. Inclining and anteverting the socket further increased the contact stresses between 6–11%. Increased socket inclination and anteversion in combination with shortening of the neck were associated with extremely high contact stresses. The effect of femoral offset restoration on range of motion was significantly higher than the effect of socket positioning. In conclusion, displacement of the femoral center of rotation in the lateral direction is at least as important for failure of hip resurfacings as socket malpositioning

Purpose: Femoral offset restoration is recognised as an important part of THA procedure to reduce the joint reactive force and improve stability. In SRA, femoral offset is often reduced due to the femoral component valgus position. The main objective of this study was to correlate the clinical function of SRA and THA patients with their different biomechanical hip reconstruction (femoral offset). Methods: 156 patients aged 23 to 65 years old and suffering from advanced hip joint degeneration were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: the THA or SRA group. All surgeries were performed through a posterior approach. Standardized pre and post operative antero-posterior radiographs of the pelvis were made and clinical scores were assessed. Results: Compared to the normal contra lateral side, the femoral offset increased on average 4.85mm (range -2.77 to 11.59mm, SD 3.31) for THA and decreased an average of 3.42mm (range −7.78 to 1.96, SD 2.12) for SRA (p=0.0001). In addition, offset restoration was within lees than 4 mm in 60.0% of the SRA group and 21.8% in the THA group (p=0.0001). There were no differences between the both groups in terms of clinical and subjective scores: the PMA and SF-36 scores were, respectively, in average 17.1 (SD 0.4) and 101 (SD 1.25) for THA and 17.0 (SD 0.4) and 101 (SD 1.14) for SRA. No relation was found between offset restoration and clinical scores for both groups. Conclusions: In this study, surgeons were less precise reconstructing the femoral offset in the THA group compared to the SRA group. However, femoral offset was lower (reduced) in the SRA in comparison to THA. This significant decreased femoral offset in SRA, seems inherent to the preferential valgus positioning of the femoral component in that technique. The excellent clinical outcome reported with SRA does not suggest that restoring normal offset is as crucial for the success of SRA because no correlation was found between femoral offset and the clinical scores used

Background: Leg length equality and femoral offset restoration are important parameters related to success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, it is not uncommon for errors to occur during surgery which can lead to less optimal functional result and potential source for litigation. Several techniques that are commonly used to assess leg length and femoral offset during THA include pre-operative templating, intra-operative measurements with a ruler using bony landmarks, assessing soft tissue tension and using measurement device with a reference pin in the iliac crest. We have previously reported on our precision to reconstruct the diseased hip with THA done without navigation. Post-operative radiographic analysis demonstrated that leg length was restored to within +/− 4mm of the contralateral side in only 60% of the patients with 4 patients needing a shoe lift. With regards to femoral offset reconstruction, it was increased by a mean of 5.1 mm and restored to within +/− 4mm of the normal contralateral side in only 25% of patients. Computer navigation has proven to be a more precise tool to achieve optimal positioning of THA implants and precise biomechanical reconstruction of the hip joint. However, performing complete THA using navigation is complex including the requirement to change the position of the patient during registration. A recent stand-alone CT-free hip navigation software from Orthosoft Inc allows navigation to be used for limb length and offset measurements during THA. We report our results from a preliminary study using this technique in 14 hips undergoing THA. In this technique, a tracker is placed over the iliac crest. There is no need to fix a tracker on the femur. Registration of the following are done: greater trochanter (using a screw), patella (using an ECG lead) and the plane of the operating table (using three points on the surface of the operating table in a triangular configuration). The centre of rotation of the hip is determined by either mapping the acetabulum or by using the appropriate sized calibrated reamer. With the definitive acetabular component in place, the new center of rotation is registered and the hip is reduced with trial femoral component. Re-registration of the new position of the greater trochanter and patella allows the computer to calculate the relative change in the limb length and offset compared to the pre-operative status. The differences in the pre-operative and post-operative limb length and offset were calculated using Imagika software and compared with the navigated values recorded by the computer. The mean absolute error for the relative change in the limb length as measured by the computer when compared to the radiographic measurement was 1.25 mm with a standard deviation of 1.77 mm. The mean absolute error for the relative change in the offset as measured by the computer when compared with the radiographic measurement was 2.96 mm with a standard deviation of 2.56 mm. The process of navigation was quick and on average adds 10 minutes to the operative time. Our preliminary study shows that the accuracy of the navigation software is very good in estimating the change in the limb length intra-operatively with a maximum error of 3 mm. The accuracy was also good in estimating the offset (3 mm or less except in one case where the error was 5 mm and this may be due to technical error in registration). This compares favorably with our own data on THA done without navigation. This easy to use navigation technique has the potential to decrease the magnitude of error in restoration of limb length and offset during THA. We thank Francois Paradois and Michael Lanigan from Orthosoft Inc. for their technical advice

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).