Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 1823–1829 | Cite as

Pelvic pitch and roll during total hip arthroplasty performed through a posterolateral approach. A potential source of error in free-hand cup positioning

  • Alejando Gonzalez Della ValleEmail author
  • Kate Shanaghan
  • Jessica R. Benson
  • Kaitlin Carroll
  • Michael Cross
  • Alexander McLawhorn
  • Peter K. Sculco
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Intraoperative pelvic motion can alter the perceived cup inclination and version during non-navigated THA. We quantified pelvic motion during different phases of primary THA performed in the lateral decubitus through a posterolateral approach.

Methods

Pelvic roll (rotation of the coronal plane) and pitch angles (rotation parallel to the coronal plane) were studied in 75 patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis by four arthroplasty surgeons. Ten steps of surgery were defined. Angular motion was recorded with a miniature surgical device that utilizes inertial sensors.

Results

The mean absolute roll ranged from 0.03° detected at the end of surgery to 4.13° detected during acetabular exposure. The mean absolute pitch ranged from 0.05° detected at the end of surgery to 2.54° detected during hip dislocation. The maximum pelvic roll and pitch detected during surgery averaged 17.62° (SD: 5.08) and 9.3° (SD: 3.39) respectively. Absolute roll and pitch angles were not affected by patient’s BMI, sex, pre-operative hip motion, or surgeon. Before cup insertion, the greatest mean change in roll was observed during acetabular exposure (10.02° anteriorly), and for pitch was observed during dislocation (1.88° caudally).

Conclusion

During THA performed through a posterolateral approach, there is a progressive anterior pelvic roll that peaks before cup insertion. This can lead to underestimation of cup anteversion during non-navigated THA. The anterior roll does not completely correct, even when all retractors and external forces acting on the pelvis are removed. Pelvic pitch that could affect the perceived cup inclination occurs to a lesser extent than pelvic roll.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Pelvic motion Cup inclination Cup version 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jeffrey M. Muir, MSc, DC, MSc (Clin Epi) and Luke Becker, BASc from Intellijoint Surgical, Inc. for their assistance in data extraction and graphic preparation.

Funding information

This study was partially funded by Intellijoint Surgical, Glenn Bergenfiend and The Sidney Milton and Leoma Simon Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

Funding for this study has been received by Intellijoint Surgical, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Shon WY, Baldini T, Peterson MG, Wright TM, Salvati EA (2005) Impingement in total hip arthroplasty a study of retrieved acetabular components. J Arthroplast 20(4):427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wan Z, Boutary M, Dorr LD (2008) The influence of acetabular component position on wear in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 23(1):51–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miettinen S, Mäkinen TJ, Laaksonen I, Mäkelä K, Huhtala H, Kettunen J, Remes V (2017) Early aseptic loosening of cementless monoblock acetabular components. Int Orthop 41:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez Della Valle A, Sharrock NE, Barlow M, Caceres L, Go G, Salvati EA (2016) The modern, hybrid total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis at Hospital for Special Surgery. Bone Joint J 98(Suppl A):54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McArthur B, Vulcano E, Cross M, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Salvati EA (2014) Acetabular component orientation in total hip arthroplasty: the impact of obesity. Hip Int 24(3):263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rojas J, Bautista M, Bonilla G, Amado O, Huerfano E, Monsalvo D, Llinas A, Navas J (2018) A retrospective study on the relationship between altered native acetabular angle and vertical implant positioning. Int Orthop 42:769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meermans G, Van Doorn WJ, Koenraadt K, Kats J (2014) The use of the transverse acetabular ligament for determining the orientation of the components in total hip replacement a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 96-B(3):312–318.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Padgett DE, González Della Valle A (2006) The uncemented acetabular component. In: Barrack RL, Rosenberg AG (eds) Master techniques in orthopaedic surgery. The hip, 1st edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 283–294Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwarzkopf R, Muir JM, Paprosky WG, Seymour S, Cross MB, Vigdorchik JM (2017) Quantifying pelvic motion during total hip arthroplasty using a new surgical navigation device. J Arthroplast 32(10):3056–3060.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cross MB, Schwarzkopf R, Miller TT, Bogner EA, Muir JM, Vigdorchik JM (2018) Improving registration accuracy during total hip arthroplasty: a cadaver study of a new, 3-D mini-optical navigation system. Hip Int 28(1):33–39.  https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Najarian BC, Kilgore JE, Markel DC (2009) Evaluation of component positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device compared with traditional methods. J Arthroplast 24(1):15–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boylan M, Suchman K, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Bosco J (2018) Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplast 33(4):1019–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grammatopoulos G, Pandit HG, da Assunção R, Taylor A, McLardy-Smith P, De Smet KA, Murray DW, Gill HS (2014) Pelvic position and movement during hip replacement. Bone Joint J 96-B(7):876–883.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asayama I, Akiyoshi Y, Naito M, Ezoe M (2004) Intraoperative pelvic motion in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 19(8):992–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ezoe M, Naito M, Asayama I, Ishiko T, Fujisawa M (2005) Pelvic motion during total hip arthroplasty with translateral and posterolateral approaches. J Orthop Sci 10(2):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ji W, Stewart N (2016) Fluoroscopy assessment during anterior minimally invasive hip replacement is more accurate than with the posterior approach. Int Orthop 40:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawarai Y, Iida S, Nakamura J, Shinada Y, Suzuki C, Ohtori S (2017) Does the surgical approach influence the implant alignment in total hip arthroplasty? Comparative study between the direct anterior and the anterolateral approaches in the supine position. Int Orthop 41:2487–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobayashi H, Homma Y, Baba T, Ochi H, Matsumoto M, Yuasa T, Kaneko K (2016) Surgeons changing the approach for total hip arthroplasty from posterior to direct anterior with fluoroscopy should consider potential excessive cup anteversion and flexion implantation of the stem in their early experience. Int Orthop 40:1813–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu J, Wan Z, Dorr LD (2010) Quantification of pelvic tilt in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 468(2):571–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1064-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bayraktar V, Weber M, von Kunow F, Zeman F, Craiovan B, Renkawitz T, Grifka J, Woerner M (2017) Accuracy of measuring acetabular cup position after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between a radiographic planning software and three-dimensional computed tomography. Int Orthop 41:731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Craiovan B, Renkawitz T, Weber M, Grifka J, Nolte L, Zheng G (2014) Is the acetabular cup orientation after total hip arthroplasty on a two dimension or three dimension model accurate? Int Orthop 38:2009–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Opperer M, DeNally F, Lee YY, Gonzalez Della Valle A (2016) A critical analysis at factors contributing to dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40(4):703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejando Gonzalez Della Valle
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kate Shanaghan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jessica R. Benson
    • 3
  • Kaitlin Carroll
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Cross
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander McLawhorn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter K. Sculco
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.From the Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Weill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Clinical ResearchIntellijoint Surgical, Inc.WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations