Influence of kinematics of the lumbopelvic complex in hip arthroplasty dislocation: from assessment to recommendations
Introduction In total hip arthroplasty (THA), misplacement of the implant can provide instability. Adequate orientation of the acetabular cup is a challenge due to variations in inter-individual anatomy and kinematics of the pelvis in everyday life. The aim of this study was to characterize the kine...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery 2023-08, Vol.143 (8), p.4773-4783 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
In total hip arthroplasty (THA), misplacement of the implant can provide instability. Adequate orientation of the acetabular cup is a challenge due to variations in inter-individual anatomy and kinematics of the pelvis in everyday life. The aim of this study was to characterize the kinematic factors influencing the risk of dislocation in order to give recommendations for optimal placement of the cup. We hypothesized that the lack of pelvic adaptation would influence the risk of prosthetic instability and motivate adapted.
Materials and methods
Eighty patients with primary unilateral THA were included in a matched case–control study. Seventy-four patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (G1) consisting of patients with postoperative THA dislocation (37 patients) and group 2 (G2), without episodes of dislocation within two years postoperatively (37 patients). In both groups, spino-pelvic parameters and cup orientation were measured in standing and sitting positions with EOS
®
X-ray imaging and compared to each other between 12 and 24 months post-operatively.
Results
No significant difference between the two groups was found for static parameters. In a sitting position, a lack of pelvic retroversion with a significant lower variation in sacral slope was observed in group 1 (8.0° ± 9.3 for G1 versus 14.7° ± 6.2 for G2,
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1434-3916 0936-8051 1434-3916 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00402-022-04722-9 |