Introduction. Recent gains in knowledge reveal that the ideal acetabular cup position is in a narrower range than previously appreciated and that position is likely different based on femoral component anteversion. For that reason more accurate acetabular cup positioning techniques will be important for contemporary THA. It is well known that malalignment of the acetabular component in THA may result in dislocation, reduced range of motion or accelerated wear. Up to 8% of THA patients have cups malaligned in version by more than ±10° outside of the Lewinnek safe zone. This type of malalignment may result in dislocation of the femoral head and instability of the joint within the first year, requiring reoperation. Reported incidences of reoperation are 1-9% depending on surgical skills and technique. In addition, cup malalignment is becoming increasingly important as adoption of
Achieving optimal acetabular cup orientation in Total Hip Replacement (THR) remains one of the most difficult challenges in THR surgery (AAOR 2013) but very little has been added to useful understanding since Lewinnek published recommendations in 1978. This is largely due to difficulties of analysis in functional positions. The pelvis is not a static reference but rotates especially in the sagittal plane depending upon the activity being performed. These dynamic changes in pelvic rotation have a substantial effect on the functional orientation of the acetabulum, not appreciated on standard radiographs [Fig1]. Studies of groups of individuals have found the mean pelvic rotation in the sagittal plane is small but large individual variations commonly occur. Posterior rotation, with sitting, increases the functional arc of the hip and is protective of a THR in regards to both edge loading and risk of dislocation. Conversely Anterior rotation, with sitting, is potentially hazardous. We developed a protocol using three functional positions – standing, supine and flexed seated (posture at “seat-off” from a standard chair). Lateral radiographs were used to define the pelvic tilt in the standing and flexed seated positions. Pelvic tilt was defined as the angle between a vertical reference line and the anterior pelvic plane (defined by the line joining both anterior superior iliac spines and the pubic symphysis). In the supine position pelvic tilt was defined as the angle between a horizontal reference line and the anterior pelvic plane. Supine pelvic tilt was measured from computed tomography. Proprietary software (Optimized Ortho, Sydney) based on Rigid Body Dynamics then modelled the patients’ dynamics through their functional range producing a patient-specific simulation which also calculates the magnitude and direction of the dynamic force at the hip and traces the contact area between prosthetic head/liner onto a polar plot of the articulating surface, Fig 2. Given prosthesis specific information edge-loading can then be predicted based on the measured distance of the contact patch to the edge of the acetabular liner. Delivery of desired orientation at surgery is facilitated by use of a solid 3D printed model of the acetabulum along with a patient specific guide which fits the model and the intra-operative acetabulum (with cartilage but not osteophytes removed) - an incorporated laser pointer then marks a reference point for the reamer and cup inserter to replicate the chosen orientation. Results and conclusions. The position of the pelvis in the sagittal plane changes significantly between functional activities. The extent of change is specific to each patient. Spinal pathology is a potent “driver” of pelvic sagittal rotation, usually unrecognised on standard radiographs. Pre-operative patient assessment can identify potential orientation problems and even suitability for
Introduction. Squeaking is a potential problem of all
Introduction. Sir John Charnley introduced his concept of low friction arthroplasty— though this did not necessarily mean low wear, as the initial experience with metal on teflon proved. Although other bearing surfaces had been tried in the past, the success of the Charnley THR meant that metal-on-polyethylene became the standard bearing couple for many years. However, concerns regarding the occurrence of peri-prosthetic lysis secondary to wear particles lead to consideration of other bearing surfaces and even to the avoidance of cement (although this has proven to be erroneous). Bearing combinations include polymers, ceramic and metallic materials and are generally categorised as hard/soft or hard/hard. In general, all newer bearing surface combinations have reduced wear but present with their own strengths and weaknesses, some of which are becoming more apparent with time. Bearing surfaces must have the following characteristics: low wear rate, low friction, Biocompatibility and corrosion resistance in synovial fluid. Hard/soft. Femoral head components are generally made of cobalt, chromium alloy, either cast or forged. Both alumina and zirconia ceramics have been used as femoral head materials and the hardness is thought to reduce the incidence of surface damage to the femoral head. The hard femoral heads have been traditionally matched with conventional ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. (UHMWPE) which has been produced by either ram extrusion or compression moulding. Over the past 10 years, most implant companies have moved to highly cross-linked UHMWP which in both laboratory and human RCTs have shown appreciably less wear.
