header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

SAFE ZONE PLOTTING ON THE TRIAL FEMORAL HEAD FOR INTRAOPERATIVE EVALUATION OF COMBINED IMPLANT ALIGNMENT

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA) meeting, 32nd Annual Congress, Toronto, Canada, October 2019. Part 1 of 2.



Abstract

Introduction

To control implant alignments (anteversion and abduction angle of the acetabular cup and antetorsion of the femoral stem) within an appropriate angle range is essentially important in total hip arthroplasty to avoid implant impingement. A navigation system is necessary for accurate intraoperative evaluation of implant alignments but is too expensive and time-consuming to be commonly used. Therefore, a cheaper and easier tool for intraoperative evaluation of the alignments is desired in the clinical field. I presented an idea of marking ruler-like scales on a trial femoral head in the last ISTA Congress. The purpose of this study is to introduce an idea further improved in evaluating the combined implant alignment intraoperatively.

Materials and Methods

We can evaluate the combined anteversion (sum of cup anteversion and stem antetorsion) and cup abduction angle by reading the scales at the most proximal point of inner edge of the liner when horizontal and vertical scales are marked on the femoral head appropriately and the hip joint is kept at the neutral position after implant settings and trial reduction. Whether the impingement occurred within the target ROM (Flx 130, IR40@Flx90, Ext 40, ER 40) was judged under specific conditions of the oscillation angle (139), neck-shaft angle of the stem (130), stem adduction angle (7), stem antetorsion (20 or 30), and cup anteversion and abduction angles. Cup anteversion and abduction angles were changed from 0 to 40 and 30 to 50 degrees in 1-degree increments, respectively. Impingement judgment was performed mathematically for each combination of implant alignment based on matrix transformations and trigonometric formulas.

Results

Impingement-free combinations of implant alignments were identified using spreadsheet software. Points which indicated impingement-free when they matched with the most proximal point of the inner edge of the liner when the hip joint was kept neutral were plotted on the surface of the head on a 3-dimensional computer graphic software. Thus, the safe zone could be indicated visually on the trial head by a collection of these points.

Discussion

We can easily judge whether the implant impingement occurs or not by using this trial head intraoperatively. However, there are several factors which make the judgment inaccurate. First, the safe zone varies according to the stem antetorsion. Second, the position at which the hip is kept intraoperatively is not necessarily neutral. Third, stem adduction angle varies according to the length of the femur.

Conclusion

Safe zone mapping on the trial femoral head is low cost and easy method to be introduced in the clinical practice for the purpose of a rough judgment of implant impingement.