Clinical graphics allows creation of three dimensional simulation based on CT or MRI that allows pre-operative planning. The software reports several hip morphological parameters routinely. Our aim was to validate the measurements of acetabular morphological parameters using CT based clinical graphics in patients presenting with symptomatic hip pain.

We reviewed standardised plain radiographs, CT scans and 3D clinical graphics outputs of 42 consecutive hips in 40 patients presenting with symptomatic hip pain. Acetabular index (AI), lateral centre edge angle (LCE), acetabular and femoral version measurements were analysed for the 3D clinical graphics with radiographs and CT as gold standard.

Significant differences were noted in measurements of AI, LCE, acetabular version and femoral version using the 3D motion analysis versus conventional measures, with only acetabular version showing comparable measurements. Correlation between 3D clinical graphics and conventional measures of acetabular morphology (AI, LCE) showed only slight agreement (ICC <0.4); while substantial agreement was noted for acetabular and femoral version (IC > 0.5).

Acetabular morphological parameters measured by 3D clinical graphics are not reliable or validated. While clinicians may pursue the use of 3D clinical graphics for preoperative non-invasive planning, caution should be exercised when interpreting the reports of hip morphological parameters such as AI and LCE.

Introduction. Improper seating during head/stem assembly can lead to unintended micromotion between the femoral head and stem taper—resulting in fretting corrosion and implant failure. 1. There is no consensus—either by manufacturers or by the surgical community—on what head/stem taper assembly method maximizes modular junction stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A 2018 clinical survey. 2. found that orthopedic surgeons prefer applying one strike or three, subsequent strikes when assembling head/stem taper. However, it has been suggested that additional strikes may lead to decreased interference strength. Additionally, the taper surface finish—micro-grooves—has been shown to affect taper interference strength and may be influenced by assembly method. The objective of this study was to employ a novel, micro-grooved finite element (FEA) model of the hip taper interface and assess the role of head/stem assembly method—one vs three strikes—on modular taper junction stability. Methods. A two-dimensional, axisymmetric FEA model representative of a CoCrMo femoral head taper and Ti6Al4V stem taper was created using median geometrical measurements taken from over 100 retrieved implants. 3. Surface finish—micro-grooves—of the head/stem taper were modeled using a sinusoidal function with amplitude and period corresponding to retrieval measurements of micro-groove height and spacing, respectively. Two stem taper micro-groove geometries— “rough” and “smooth”—were modeled corresponding to the median and 5. th. percentile height and spacing measurements from retrievals. All models had a 3' (0.05°), proximal-locked angular mismatch between the tapers. To simulate implant assembly during surgery, multiple dynamic loads (4kN, 8kN, and 12kN) were applied to the femoral head taper in a sequence of one or three strikes. The input load profile (Figure 1) used for both cases was collected from surgeons assembling an experimental setup with a three-dimensional load sensor. Models were assembled and meshed in ABAQUS Standard (v 6.17) using four-node linear hexahedral, reduced integration elements. Friction was modeled between the stem and head taper using surface-to-surface formulation with penalty contact (µ=0.2). A total of 12 implicit, dynamic simulations (3 loads × 2 assembly sequences × 2 stem taper surface finishes) were run, with 2 static simulations at 4kN for evaluating inertial effects. Outcome variables included contact area, contact pressure, equivalent plastic strain, and pull-off force. Results. As expected, increasing assembly load led to increased contact area, pressures, and plasticity for both taper finishes. Rough tapers exhibited less total contact area at each loading level as compared to the smooth taper. Contact pressures were relatively similar across the stem taper finishes, except the 3-strike smooth taper, which exhibited the lowest contact pressures (Figure 2) and pull-off forces. The models assembled with one strike exhibited the greatest contact pressures, pull-off forces, and micro-groove plastic deformation (Figure 3). Conclusion. Employing 1-strike loads led to greater contact areas, pressures, pull-off forces, and plastic deformation of the stem taper micro-grooves as compared to tapers assembled with three strikes. Residual energy may be lost with subsequent assembly strikes, suggesting that one, firm strike maximizes taper assembly mechanics. These models will be used to identify the optimal design factors and impaction method to maximize stability of modular taper junctions. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Aims

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients report exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion. However, the exact impingement location in deep flexion is unknown. The aim was to investigate impingement-free maximal flexion, impingement location, and if cam deformity causes hip impingement in flexion in FAI patients.

Aims

The prevalence of combined abnormalities of femoral torsion (FT) and tibial torsion (TT) is unknown in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of combined abnormalities of FT and TT, and which subgroups are associated with combined abnormalities of FT and TT.