Abstract
Introduction
The limited field of view with less-invasive hip approaches for total hip arthroplasty can make a reliable cup positioning more challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cup placement between the traditional transgluteal approach and the anterior approach in a routine setting.
Objectives
We asked if the (1) accuracy, (2) precision, and (3) number of outliers of the prosthetic cup orientation differed between three study groups: the anterior approach in supine position, the anterior approach in lateral decubitus position, and the transgluteal approach in lateral decubitus position.
Methods
In a retrospective comparative study we compared the inclination and anteversion of the cup after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a consecutive series of 325 patients (350 hips). The transgluteal approach group consisted of 67 hips operated in lateral decubitus position; the anterior approach in supine position consisted of 127 operated and the anterior approach in lateral decubitus position consisted of 156 hips. The aim of the cup orientation was Lewinnek's safe zone defined by an inclination of 40±10° and an anteversion of 15°±10°. The postoperative cup orientation was determined using a validated computer-assisted method based on statistical shape modeling. This method allows the virtual creation of an accurate three-dimensional pelvic model for each individual patient based on the two-dimensional anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. The inclination and anteversion was then calculated relative to the anterior pelvic plane – a natural reference plane for the calculation of inclination and anteversion. Accuracy was defined as the difference from the cup orientation to Lewinnek's target value. Precision was defined as the standard deviation of the two angles. Outliers were characterized by an anteversion or inclination angle outside of Lewinnek's safe zone.
Results
(1) The accuracy of the anterior approach in supine position did not differ compared to the transgluteal approach, but differed to the anterior approach in supine position for inclination (p=0.882; p<0.001) (Figure 1) and anteversion (p = 0.014; p<0.001) (Figure 2). (2) The precision of the anterior approach in supine position was significantly higher compared to the transgluteal approach (p<0.001) and the anterior approach in lateral decubitus position for anteversion (p<0.001 for both groups) and inclination (p<0.001 for both groups) (Figure 3). (3) There was a significantly reduced number of outliers for the anterior approach in supine position compared to the anterior approach in lateral position (p=0.001) but not in comparison to the transgluteal approach (p=0.999) (Figure 2).
Conclusions
The anterior approach in supine position results in a more precise placement of the prosthetic cup both for inclination and anteversion. Cup placement with less-invasive approaches does not lead to a higher variability of cup placement despite the more limited surgical field of view.
For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).
