Using preoperative planning software to assess the effect of head length on prosthetic range of motion in a high-risk population: a three-dimensional modeling study.

PURPOSE: Concurrent use of minus heads with tapered stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the prosthetic range of motion (pROM). Three-dimensional preoperative templating can simulate the location of the impingement by taking the hip through a virtual pROM. This enables surgeons to simulate how modifying the type of implant, orientation, and position influences impingement. We hypothesized that CT-based modeling would result in a decrease in the pROM, thereby increasing the risk of impingement when minus heads are used. METHODS: Forty-three patients who underwent robotic-assisted primary THAs were included. Prosthetic head diameter (32/36-mm) and head length (minus/zero/plus) were the predictors. Maximum external rotation at full hip extension and internal rotation at 90° and 100° of flexion prior to prosthetic impingement were the outcome variables. A CT-based preoperative planning software was used for pROM estimation and impingement detection. RESULTS: Significant decreases in pROM were found for both head diameters as the head length decreased and was more pronounced in external rotation during full hip extension (changes of 2.8-3.4° for the 32-mm head and 1.6-2.8° for the 36-mm head (p = 0.00011)). The magnitude of loss in pROM when using a minus head was larger than the gain provided by a plus head in tapered stems (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Head length affects the offset and pROM. When the use of minus heads or smaller heads is indicated, 3D preoperative templating for assessing postoperative pROM and impingement provides surgeons with options to consider alternate surgical plans offering additional assurance and protection from dislocation.

Hip Abduction Can Be Considered the Sole Posterior Precaution Strategy to Lower the Rate of Impingement After Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty With Large Femoral Head: A Computer Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that posterior hip precautions are unnecessary after total hip arthroplasty; however, many surgeons and patients choose to follow these precautions to some extent. In this study, we hypothesized that 20° of hip abduction would be sufficient to prevent impingement and dislocation in motions requiring hip flexion when using larger prosthetic heads (≥36 mm) when the acetabular implant is placed within a reasonable orientation (anteversion:15-25° and inclination: 40-60°). METHODS: Using a robotic hip platform, we investigated the effect of hip abduction on prosthetic and bony impingement in 43 patients. For the flexed seated position, anterior pelvic tilt angles of 10 and 20° were chosen, while anterior pelvic tilt angles of 70 and 90° were chosen for the bending forward position. An additional 10° of hip external rotation and 10 or 20° of hip internal rotation were also added to the simulation. One hip received a 32-mm head; otherwise, 36-, 40-mm, or dual-mobility heads were used. The study power was 0.99, and the effect size was 0.644. RESULTS: In 65% of the cases, bone-bone impingement between the calcar and anterior-inferior iliac spine was the main type of impingement. The absolute risk of impingement decreased between 0 and 16.3% in both tested positions with the addition of 20° hip abduction. CONCLUSION: With modern primary total hip arthroplasty stems (low neck diameter) and an overall acceptable cup anteversion angle, small degrees of hip abduction may be the only posterior hip precaution strategy required to lower the risk of dislocation among patients. Future studies can potentially investigate the concept of personalized hip precautions based on preoperative computer simulations, utilized implants, hip-spine relations, and final implant orientation.

Small Random Angular Variations in Pelvic Tilt and Lower Extremity Can Cause Error in Static Image-based Preoperative Hip Arthroplasty Planning: A Computer Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Many THA simulation models rely on a limited set of preoperative static radiographs to replicate sagittal pelvic tilt during functional positions and to recommend an implant orientation that minimizes the risk of prosthetic impingement. However, possible random changes in pelvic or lower extremity angular motions and the effect of coronal and axial pelvic tilt are not included in these preoperative models. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Can prosthetic impingement occur if the pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment randomly varies up to ± 5° from what is measured on a single preoperative static radiographic image? (2) Do changes in coronal and axial pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment angles have a similar effect on the risk of prosthetic impingement? METHODS: A de-identified pelvis and lower-body CT image of a male patient without previous THA or lower extremity surgery was used to import the pelvis, femur, and tibia into a verified MATLAB computer model. The motions of standing, pivoting, sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward were simulated. THA implant components included a full hemispherical acetabular cup without an elevated rim, polyethylene liner without an elevated rim, femoral head (diameter: 28 mm, 32 mm, 36 mm, or 40 mm), and a triple-taper cementless stem with three different neck shaft angles (127°, 132°, or 135°) with a trapezoidal neck were used in this model. A static model (cup anatomical abduction 40°, cup anatomical anteversion 20°, stem anatomical anteversion 10°) with a predefined range of sagittal pelvic tilt and hip alignment (0° coronal or axial tilt, without random ± 5° change) was used to simulate each motion. We then randomly varied pelvic tilt in three different pelvic planes and hip alignments (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, rotation) up to ± 5° and assessed the same motions without changing the implant's anatomical orientation. Prosthetic impingement as the endpoint was defined as mechanical abutment between the prosthetic neck and polyethylene liner. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of variation in pelvic tilt and hip alignment (predictors) on prosthetic impingement (primary outcome). RESULTS: The static-based model without the random variation did not result in any prosthetic impingement under any conditions. However, with up to ± 5° of random variation in the pelvic tilt and hip alignment angles, prosthetic impingement occurred in pivoting (18 possible combinations), sit-to-stand (106 possible combinations), and squatting (one possible combination) when a 28-mm or a 32-mm head was used. Variation in sagittal tilt (odds ratio 4.09 [95% CI 3.11 to 5.37]; p < 0.001), axial tilt (OR 3.87 [95% CI 2.96 to 5.07]; p < 0.001), and coronal tilt (OR 2.39 [95% CI 2.03 to 2.83]; p < 0.001) affected the risk of prosthetic impingement. Variation in hip flexion had a strong impact on the risk of prosthetic impingement (OR 4.11 [95% CI 3.38 to 4.99]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The combined effect of 2° to 3° of change in multiple pelvic tilt or hip alignment angles relative to what is measured on a single static radiographic image can result in prosthetic impingement. Relying on a few preoperative static radiographic images to minimize the risk of prosthetic impingement, without including femoral implant orientation, axial and coronal pelvic tilt, and random angular variation in pelvis and lower extremity alignment, may not be adequate and may fail to predict prosthetic impingement-free ROM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Determining a safe zone for THA implant positioning with respect to impingement may require a dynamic computer simulation model to fully capture the range of possible impingement conditions. Future work should concentrate on devising simple and easily available methods for dynamic motion analysis instead of using a few static radiographs for preoperative planning.

Femoral stem neck geometry determines hip range of motion shape : a computer simulation study.

AIMS: In computer simulations, the shape of the range of motion (ROM) of a stem with a cylindrical neck design will be a perfect cone. However, many modern stems have rectangular/oval-shaped necks. We hypothesized that the rectangular/oval stem neck will affect the shape of the ROM and the prosthetic impingement. METHODS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) motion while standing and sitting was simulated using a MATLAB model (one stem with a cylindrical neck and one stem with a rectangular neck). The primary predictor was the geometry of the neck (cylindrical vs rectangular) and the main outcome was the shape of ROM based on the prosthetic impingement between the neck and the liner. The secondary outcome was the difference in the ROM provided by each neck geometry and the effect of the pelvic tilt on this ROM. Multiple regression was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The stem with a rectangular neck has increased internal and external rotation with a quatrefoil cross-section compared to a cone in a cylindrical neck. Modification of the cup orientation and pelvic tilt affected the direction of projection of the cone or quatrefoil shape. The mean increase in internal rotation with a rectangular neck was 3.4° (0° to 7.9°; p < 0.001); for external rotation, it was 2.8° (0.5° to 7.8°; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study shows the importance of attention to femoral implant design for the assessment of prosthetic impingement. Any universal mathematical model or computer simulation that ignores each stem's unique neck geometry will provide inaccurate predictions of prosthetic impingement. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):780-789.

Delayed-Onset Sciatic Nerve Palsy After Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Case Report.

CASE: A large surgical correction was required for severe hip dysplasia, which was associated with a delayed-onset sciatic nerve injury in an adolescent patient. A cortical bone spur on the outside of the acetabular fragment produced an indirect injury that became symptomatic during mobilization of the patient. CONCLUSION: The risk of direct injury to the sciatic nerve during a periacetabular osteotomy is quite low when the osteotomy is executed in extension with abduction of the hip and flexion of the knee to reduce tension on the sciatic nerve. Reported injuries have been attributed to direct damage from excessive soft-tissue retraction or during osseous ischial, supra-acetabular, and/or retroacetabular osteotomies.

Trends in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty Among Orthopedic Surgeons Who Take the American Board of Orthopedics Part II Examination.

BACKGROUND: A certified list of all operative cases performed within a 6-month period is a required prerequisite for surgeons taking the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II oral examination. Using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery secure Internet database database containing these cases, this study (1) assessed changing trends for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and (2) compared practices and early postoperative complications between 2 groups of examinees, those with and without adult reconstruction fellowship training. METHODS: Secure Internet database was searched for all 2003-2013 procedures with a Current Procedural Terminology code for THA, hip resurfacing, hemiarthroplasty, revision hip arthroplasty, conversion to THA, or removal of hip implant (Girdlestone, static, or dynamic spacer). RESULTS: Adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons performed 60% of the more than 33,000 surgeries identified (average 28.1) and nonfellowship-trained surgeons performed 40% (average 5.2) (P < .001). Fellowship-trained surgeons performed significantly more revision surgeries for infection (71% vs 29%)(P < .001). High-volume surgeons had significantly fewer complications in both primary (11.1% vs 19.6%) and revision surgeries (29% vs 35.5%) (P < .001). Those who passed the Part II examination reported higher rates of complications (21.5% vs 19.9%). CONCLUSION: In early practice, primary and revision hip arthroplasties are often performed by surgeons without adult reconstruction fellowship training. Complications are less frequently reported by surgeons with larger volumes of joint replacement surgery who perform either primary or more complex cases. Primary hip arthroplasty is increasingly performed by surgeons early in practice who have completed an adult reconstructive fellowship after residency training. This trend is even more pronounced for more complex cases such as revision or management of infection.