Activities of Daily Living After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Is a 32-mm Femoral Head Superior to a 26-mm Head for Improving Daily Activities?

Overview

Journal Int Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2010 Jan 22

PMID 20091032

Citations 7

Authors

Isao Matsushita

Yuji Morita

Yoshiaki Ito

Ryuichi Gejo

Tomoatsu Kimura

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Range of motion (ROM) of the hip joint after total hip arthroplasty (THA) could be increased by using a larger prosthetic femoral head, but it is not known whether the activities of daily living (ADL) are influenced by THA with different head sizes. Our objective was to compare postoperative ADL in patients who underwent THA using a head diameter of 26 mm or 32 mm. We assessed the range of motion and the mode of ADL after cementless primary THA. Comparison was performed between 25 joints of 24 patients who underwent THA with a 26-mm femoral head (26-mm group) and 24 joints of 20 patients with a 32-mm head (32-mm group). The postoperative range of flexion and abduction was significantly larger in the 32-mm group than in the 26-mm group. With respect to the mode of performing selected ADL such as putting on and removing pants, socks, and cutting toenails, many patients adopted the compensatory position of lumbar flexion with hip flexion plus knee extension in the 26-mm group, while a majority of the patients from the 32-mm group employed the mode of hip flexion with knee flexion. Patients with the 32-mm head showed better postoperative ADL of the ipsilateral side compared with the 26-mm head.

Citing Articles

Analysis of biomechanical gait parameters in patients after total hip replacement operated via anterolateral approach depending on size of the femoral head implant: retrospective matched-cohort study.

Stolarczyk A, Stolarczyk M, Oleksy L, Maciag G, Stepinski P, Szymczak J Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 142(12):4015-4023.

PMID: 34837506 PMC: 9596593. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04264-6.

Global diversity in bearings in primary THA.

Tsikandylakis G, Overgaard S, Zagra L, Karrholm J EFORT Open Rev. 2020; 5(10):763-775.

PMID: 33204520 PMC: 7608521. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200002.

Survival and outcomes of different head sizes in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Shah S J Orthop. 2020; 16(6):A1-A3.

PMID: 32395040 PMC: 7206538. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.10.001.

Head size in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Tsikandylakis G, Mohaddes M, Cnudde P, Eskelinen A, Karrholm J, Rolfson O EFORT Open Rev. 2018; 3(5):225-231.

PMID: 29951260 PMC: 5994615. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170061.

Bony impingement limits design-related increases in hip range of motion.

Bunn A, Colwell Jr C, DLima D Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(2):418-27.

PMID: 21918798 PMC: 3254736. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2096-3.

References

Johnston R, Smidt G . Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1970; 72:205-15. View

Mu Z, Tian J, Wu T, Yang J, Pei F . A systematic review of radiological outcomes of highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(3):599-604. PMC: 2903077. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-008-0716-7. View

Harris W . The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; (311):46-53. View

Widmer K . Containment versus impingement: finding a compromise for cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2007; 31 Suppl 1:S29-33. PMC: 2267522. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0429-3. View

Yoshimine F, Ginbayashi K . A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement. J Biomech. 2002; 35(7):989-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(02)00040-4. View

Lewinnek G, Lewis J, Tarr R, COMPERE C, Zimmerman J . Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(2):217-20. View

Kesteris U, Ilchmann T, Wingstrand H, Onnerfalt R . Polyethylene wear in Scanhip arthroplasty with a 22 or 32 mm head: 62 matched patients followed for 7-9 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67(2):125-7. DOI: 10.3109/17453679608994655. View

Burroughs B, Hallstrom B, Golladay G, Hoeffel D, Harris W . Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(1):11-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.07.008. View

Muratoglu O, Bragdon C, OConnor D, Perinchief R, Estok 2nd D, Jasty M . Larger diameter femoral heads used in conjunction with a highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: a new concept. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(8 Suppl 1):24-30. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.28376. View

10.

DLima D, Urquhart A, Buehler K, Walker R, Colwell Jr C . The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(3):315-21. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200003000-00003. View

11.

Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey B . Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(4):518-28. View

12.

Mibe J, Imakiire A, Watanabe T, Fujie T . Results of total hip arthroplasty with bone graft and support ring for protrusio acetabuli in rheumatoid arthritis. J Orthop Sci. 2005; 10(1):8-14. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-004-0845-9. View

13.

Eggli S, Zbrun S, Gerber C, Ganz R . Comparison of polyethylene wear with femoral heads of 22 mm and 32 mm. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84(3):447-51. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b3.11344. View

14.

Ishii Y, Tojo T, Terajima K, Terashima S, Bechtold J . Intracapsular components do not change hip proprioception. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81(2):345-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.81b2.9104. View

15.

Geller J, Malchau H, Bragdon C, Greene M, Harris W, Freiberg A . Large diameter femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene: minimum 3-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 447:53-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000218742.61624.80. View