Patients with primary hip osteoarthritis and to determine whether the orientation of their native hip joints corresponded with established recommendations for implantation of prosthetic components. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 131 preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis (fifty-seven male and seventy-four female patients; mean age, sixty years). Patients were positioned according to a standardized protocol. Accounting for pelvic tilt, three-dimensional acetabular orientation was determined in the anatomical reference frame. Moreover, three-dimensional femoral version was measured. Differences in native anatomy between male and female patients were assessed with use of nonparametric tests. Native anatomy was evaluated with reference to the “safe zone” as described by Lewinnek et al. and to a “safe” combined anteversion of 20° to 40°. Results: In the entire cohort, the mean femoral anteversion was 13° and the mean acetabular anteversion was 19°. No significant differences in femoral, acetabular, or combined (femoral and acetabular) anteversion were observed between male and female patients. The mean acetabular inclination was 62°. There was no significant difference in acetabular inclination between female and male patients. We did not observe a correlation among acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion, and femoral anteversion. Ninety-five percent (125) of the native acetabula were classified as being within the safe anteversion zone, whereas only 15% (nineteen) were classified as being within the safe inclination zone. Combined anteversion was within the safe limits in 63% (eighty-three) of the patients. However, only 8% (ten) of the cases in the present cohort met the criteria of both “safe zone” definitions (that of Lewinnek et al. and combined anteversion). Conclusions: Acetabular anteversion of the osteoarthritic hip as defined by the native acetabular rim typically matches the recommended component “targets” for cup insertion. There was no specific relationship among native acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion, and femoral anteversion. Neither native acetabular inclination nor native combined anteversion appears to be related to current implant insertion targets. Clinical Relevance: The present findings of native acetabular and femoral orientation in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis support intraoperative component positioning for total hip arthroplasty....

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to identify any difference in femoral offset as measured on pre-operative anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the pelvis, AP radiographs of the hip and corresponding CT scans in a consecutive series of 100 patients with primary end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip (43 men and 57 women with a mean age of 61 years (45 to 74) and a mean body mass index of 28 kg/m²(20 to 45)).Patients were positioned according to a standardised protocol to achieve reproducible projection and all images were calibrated. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was evaluated and agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots.In the entire cohort, the mean femoral offset was 39.0 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 40.6) on radiographs of the pelvis, 44.0 mm (95% CI 42.4 to 45.6) on radiographs of the hip and 44.7 mm (95% CI 43.5 to 45.9) on CT scans. AP radiographs of the pelvis underestimated femoral offset by 13% when compared with CT (p < 0.001). No difference in mean femoral offset was seen between AP radiographs of the hip and CT (p = 0.191).Our results suggest that femoral offset is significantly underestimated on AP radiographs of the pelvis but can be reliably and accurately assessed on AP radiographs of the hip in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis.We, therefore, recommend that additional AP radiographs of the hip are obtained routinely for the pre-operative assessment of femoral offset when templating before total hip replacement.

The occurrence of pseudotumours (soft tissue masses relating to the hip joint) following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty has been associated with higher than normal bearing wear and high serum metal ion levels although both these findings do not necessarily coexist. The purpose of this study was to examine patient activity patterns and their influence on acetabular component edge loading in a group of subjects with known serum metal ion levels. Fifteen subjects with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (eight males and seven females) were recruited for motion analysis followed by computed tomography scans. They were divided into three groups based on their serum metal ion levels and the orientation of their acetabular component: well-positioned acetabular component with low metal ions, mal-positioned acetabular component with low metal ions and mal-positioned acetabular component with high ions. A combination of motion analysis, subject-specific modelling (AnyBody Modeling System, Aalborg, Denmark) and computed tomography measurements was used to calculate dynamically the contact patch-to-rim distance for each subject during gait and sit-to-stand. The contact-pitch-to-rim distance for the high ion group was significantly lower ( p<0.001) than for the two low ion groups (well-positioned and mal-positioned) during the stance phase of gait (0%–60%) and loading phase of sit-to-stand (20%–80%). The results of this study, in particular, the significant difference between the two mal-positioned groups, suggest that wear of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not only affected by acetabular cup orientation but also influenced by individual patient activity patterns.

Persistent pain is an important cause of patient dissatisfaction after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and has been correlated with localized tibial strain. However, the factors that influence these strains are not well understood. To address this issue, we created finite element models to examine the effect on tibial strain of: (1) muscle forces (estimated using instrumented knee data) acting on attachment sites on the proximal tibia, (2) UKR implantation, (3) loading position, and (4) changes in gait pattern. Muscle forces acting on the tibia had no significant influence on strains within the periprosthetic region, but UKR implantation increased strain by 20%. Strain also significantly increased if the region of load application was moved >3 mm medially. The strain within the periprosthetic region was found to be dependent on gait pattern and was influenced by both medial and lateral loads, with the medial load having a greater effect (regression coefficients: medial = 0.74, lateral = 0.30). These findings suggest that tibial strain is increased after UKR and may be a cause of pain. It may be possible to reduce pain through modification of surgical factors or through altered gait patterns. © 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 31: 821–828, 2013