Hip arthroplasty does not always restore normal anatomy. This is due to inaccurate surgery or lack of stem sizes. We evaluated the aptitude of four total hip arthroplasty systems to restore an anatomical and medialized hip rotation centre. Using 3D templating software in 49 CT scans of non-deformed femora, we virtually implanted: 1) small uncemented calcar-guided stems with two offset options (Optimys, Mathys), 2) uncemented straight stems with two offset options (Summit, DePuy Synthes), 3) cemented undersized stems (Exeter philosophy) with three offset options (CPT, ZimmerBiomet), and 4) cemented line-to-line stems (Kerboul philosophy) with proportional offsets (Centris, Mathys). We measured the distance between the templated and the anatomical and 5 mm medialized hip rotation centre.Aims
Methods
Evaluating musculoskeletal conditions of the lower limb and understanding the pathophysiology of complex bone kinematics is challenging. Static images do not take into account the dynamic component of relative bone motion and muscle activation. Fluoroscopy and dynamic MRI have important limitations. Dynamic CT (4D-CT) is an emerging alternative that combines high spatial and temporal resolution, with an increased availability in clinical practice. 4D-CT allows simultaneous visualization of bone morphology and joint kinematics. This unique combination makes it an ideal tool to evaluate functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. In the lower limb, 4D-CT has been used to diagnose femoroacetabular impingement, patellofemoral, ankle and subtalar joint instability, or reduced range of motion. 4D-CT has also been used to demonstrate the effect of surgery, mainly on patellar instability. 4D-CT will need further research and validation before it can be widely used in clinical practice. We believe, however, it is here to stay, and will become a reference in the diagnosis of lower limb conditions and the evaluation of treatment options. Cite this article:
Natural population variation in femoral morphology results in a large range of offsets, anteversion angles and lengths. During total hip arthroplasty, accurate restoration of hip biomechanics is essential to achieve good functional results. One option is to restore the anatomic hip rotation center. Alternatively, medializing the rotation center and compensating by increasing the femoral offset, reduces acetabular contact forces and increases the abductor lever arm. We investigated the ability of two cemented stem systems to restore hip biomechanics in an anatomic and medialized way. We compared an undersized “Exeter-type” of stem with three offset options and 18 sizes (CPT, Zimmer), to a line-to-line “Kerboul-type” of stem with proportional offset and 12 sizes (Centris, Mathys). Thirty CT scans of whole femora were segmented and the hip rotation center, proximal femoral axis and femoral length were determined with Mimics and 3-matic (Materialise). Using scripting functionality in the software, CAD design files of both stems were automatically sized and aligned along the proximal femoral axis to restore an anatomical and a 5 mm medialized hip rotation center. Stem size and position could be fine-tuned manually. The maximum distances between the prosthetic (PRC), the anatomic (ARC) and the medialized hip rotation center (MRC) were calculated (Fig. 1). Variations in femoral offset (ΔFO), anteroposterior (ΔAP) and proximodistal distance (ΔPD) were analyzed. Finally, the number of cases where the hip rotation center could be restored within 5 mm was reported.Introduction
Methods
Accurate detection of migration of hip arthroplasty stems without the burden of bone markers and stereo-radiographic equipment is of interest. This would facilitate the study of stem migration in an experimental setting, but more importantly, it would allow assessing stem loosening in patients with a painful hip outside a study protocol. We developed and validated a marker-free automated CT-based spatial analysis method (CTSA) to quantify stem-bone migration in successive CT scan acquisitions. First, we segmented the bone and stem within both three-dimensional images, then we pairwise registered those elements (Fig. 1). By comparing the rigid transformations of stem and bone, we calculated the migration of the stem with reference to the bone and transferred the three translation and three rotation parameters to an anatomic coordinate system. Based on the rigid transformation, we also calculated the point of the stem that presented the maximal migration (PMM). Accuracy was assessed in a stem-bone model (Fig. 2) by imposing 39 predefined stem rotations and translations, and by comparing those with values calculated with the CTSA tool. In all cases, differences were below 0.20 mm for translations and 0.19° for rotations (95% tolerance interval (95% TI) below 0.22 mm and 0.20°, largest standard deviation of the signed error (SDSE) 0.081 mm and 0.057°). Precision was defined as stem migration calculated in eight clinical relevant zero-migration scenarios. In all cases, precision was below 0.05 mm and 0.08° (95% TI below 0.06 mm and 0.08°, largest SDSE 0.012 mm and 0.020°). The largest displacement of the PMM on the stem was 0.169mm. The precision estimated in five patients was very dependent on the CT scan resolution and was below 0.48 mm and 0.37° (95% TI below 0.59 mm and 0.61°, largest SDSE 0.202 mm and 0.279°, largest displacement of the PMM 0.972 mm). In optimized conditions, the precision in patients improved largely and was below 0.040 mm and 0.111° (largest SDSE 0.202 mm and 0.279°, largest displacement of the PMM 0.156 mm). Our marker-free automated CT-based spatial analysis can detect hip stem migration with an accuracy and precision comparable to that of radiostereometric analysis (RSA), but without the burden of bone markers and the cost of stereo-radiographic equipment. As such, we believe our tool could make accurate measurement of stem migration available to departments without access to RSA and boost this type of research. Moreover, as CTSA does not rely on bone makers, it is applicable to all-comers with a painful hip arthroplasty. Indeed, in those patients with a reference CT scan after hip replacement, a new CT scan could demonstrate stem migration. If no initial CT scan is available, a reference scan could be taken during a first visit and repeated later. Additionally, a “stress test” of the hip could be performed. During such test, comparing CT images acquired during forced maximal intern and external rotation could demonstrate stem loosening.
