Good Vs Poor Results After Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis Method Using Implant and Anatomic Parameters With the EOS Imaging System

Background: Existing imaging techniques and single-parameter analyses, in nonfunctional positions, fail to detect the differences between patients with good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty.

Methods: The present study developed an analysis method using the EOS full-body, low-dose, biplanar, weightbearing imaging system to compare good vs poor patients after total hip arthroplasty and to report on our preliminary experiences (17 good, 18 poor).

Results: All revision cases were found to have at least 4 high or low implant or anatomic parameters relative to the good group. These included acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset, and neck-shaft angle. Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups.

Conclusion: With the EOS system, a large cohort can be studied relatively quickly and at low dose, which could lead to patient-specific guidelines.