Acetabular cup positioning in primary routine total hip arthroplasty

Anshuman Sahoo; Biplabi  Sarangadhar Das; Soma Suprava

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20262039

Authors

Anshuman Sahoo Department of Orthopaedics, DRIHS and Padmini Care Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India
Biplabi Sarangadhar Das Department of Orthopaedics, DRIHS and Padmini Care Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India
Soma Suprava Department of Pathology, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20262039

Keywords:

Total hip arthroplasty, Positioning of the acetabular cup, Safe zone, Dislocation, Orientation of the implant

Abstract

Background: Correct location of the acetabular cup is essential for stability, wear patterns, and functional results after primary Total hip arthroplasty (THA). Even with improvements in implant design and surgical methods, improper placement of the acetabular component is still a common cause of problems after surgery.

Methods: This prospective observational study included 2,400 patients undergoing primary routine total hip arthroplasty from October 2022 to May 2024. We examined postoperative radiographs to assess the inclination and anterior displacement of the cup. We kept track of clinical outcomes and issues during the follow-up.

Results: Most of the acetabular components were placed in the radiographic safe zone that is generally acknowledged. Cups that were not positioned correctly were strongly linked to greater risks of dislocation, pain from impingement, and early revision. Patients with cups that were positioned just right had better functional outcomes.
Conclusions: Proper location of the acetabular cup is very important for getting good early results after primary THA. Regular evaluation and compliance with established orientation criteria may mitigate issues and enhance patient satisfaction.

References

Charnley J. Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer. 1979.

Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737-55.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-5.

Berry DJ. Epidemiology of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):244-50.

Callaghan JJ, Albright JC, Goetz DD, Olejniczak JP, Johnston RC. Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement: Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(4):690-5.

Dorr LD, Callaghan JJ. Functional positioning of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6):20-4.

McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(261):159-70.

Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(5):530-4.

Foster A, Thompson NW, Wong J, Charlwood AP. Does cup orientation affect the rate of dislocation in primary total hip replacement?. Hip Int. 2007;17(4):211-5.

Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217-20.

Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, et al. The Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position is not safe. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):3192-201.

DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Plakseychuk AY, Moody JE. Comparison of a mechanical acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(426):56-63.

Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Da Assunção R, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, De Smet KA, et al. Pelvic position and movement during hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96(7):876-83.

Pierrepont J, Hawdon G, Miles BP, Marston B, Wimhurst J, Wynne L, et al. Variation in functional pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(2):184-91.

Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(2):228-32.

Elkins JM, Kruger KM, Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Edge-loading severity as a function of cup position in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech. 2013;46(2):232-8.

Esposito CI, Carroll KM, Sculco PK, Padgett DE, Jerabek SA, Mayman DJ. Total hip arthroplasty patients with fixed spinopelvic alignment are at higher risk of dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9):117-20.

Abdel MP, Von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What safe zone? The effect of patient factors on dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(7):597-602.

Parvizi J, Shohat N, Buckwalter JA. Individualized positioning of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7):208-13.

Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, Madurawe CS, Ricciardi BF, Domb BG, Ranawat AS, et al. A functional safe zone for acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7):S7-11.

Lazennec JY, Riwan A, Gravez F, Saillant G. Hip spine relationship: a radio-anatomical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(5):484-91.

Babisch JW, Layher F, Amiot LP. The rationale for tilt-adjusted anteversion measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1376-82.

Yoon TR, Rowe SM, Kim MS, Seon JK. Causes of instability after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(441):45-51.

Hannan MT, Goodman SM, Shengelia R, Pugely AJ, Memtsoudis SG, Schwarzkopf R, et al. Technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty: current concepts. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(6):S18-24.

Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty: A critical analysis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101(7):930-9.