» Articles » PMID: 37625464

Some Offset Restoration Options Can Paradoxically Lead to Decreased Range of Motion in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 3-Dimensional Computer Simulation Study

Overview
Journal J Arthroplasty
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2023 Aug 25
PMID 37625464
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), femoral offset restoration results in optimal biomechanics and range of motion (ROM) without bone-bone impingement. We hypothesized that differences in implant design features significantly affect bone-bone impingement risk in primary THA.

Methods: This retrospective computer simulation study included a cohort of 43 primary robotic arm-assisted THA. Considering sagittal pelvic tilt, we measured the maximum external rotation at 0° hip flexion and the maximum internal rotation at both 90° and 100° hip flexion before any bone-bone impingement occurred. To influence the offset, we included neutral or extended polyethylene liners, neutral or plus prosthetic heads, standard or high-offset stems, and stems with 132° or 127° neck angles.

Results: Extended polyethylene liner use resulted in decreased bone-bone impingement for both stems but also decreased prosthetic ROM in hip extension (mean -4.5 to 5°, range -10 to 0°) and hip flexion (mean -3 to 3.7°, range -10 to 0°) due to decreases in head diameter. Using a plus head or different stem offset/neck angle options resulted in either (1) no improvement in ROM (stem 1: 60%; stem 2: 28%) or (2) a paradoxical increase in bone-bone impingement (stem 1 with 127°: 19% and stem 2 with high offset option: 7%).

Conclusion: Counterintuitively, a subset of patients experience a paradoxical increase in bone-bone impingement when transitioning from standard to high-offset or varus necks due to the pelvic and proximal femoral bone shape. For this group of patients, preoperative personalized 3-dimensional modeling may help guide implant choice for optimizing outcomes.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Hip and Lumbar Spine Range of Motion After Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Single Camera Markerless System.

Roustemis A, Gavriil P, Skouras A, Melissaridou D, Sioutis S, Trikoupis I Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e65875.

PMID: 39219940 PMC: 11364358. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65875.

References
1.
Korber S, Antonios J, Sivasundaram L, Mayfield C, Kang H, Chung B . Utilization of technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2018. Arthroplast Today. 2021; 12:36-44. PMC: 8567325. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.08.020. View

2.
Vigdorchik J, Sharma A, Elbuluk A, Carroll K, Mayman D, Lieberman J . High Offset Stems Are Protective of Dislocation in High-Risk Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 36(1):210-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.016. View

3.
Vigdorchik J, Sharma A, Madurawe C, Elbuluk A, Bare J, Pierrepont J . Does Prosthetic or Bony Impingement Occur More Often in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Dynamic Preoperative Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35(9):2501-2506. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.009. View

4.
Charles M, Bourne R, Davey J, Greenwald A, Morrey B, Rorabeck C . Soft-tissue balancing of the hip: the role of femoral offset restoration. Instr Course Lect. 2005; 54:131-41. View

5.
Bourne R, Rorabeck C . Soft tissue balancing: the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17(4 Suppl 1):17-22. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2002.33263. View