Cargando…

Acetabular Component Anteversion in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Observational Study

PURPOSE: In a prospective manner to evaluate the range of acetabular component anteversion actually achieved by the use of a cup positioner in cementless revision and primary THA. METHODS: We operated 71 patients with cementless primary THA, and 26 patients with cementless acetabular revision surger...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reikerås, Olav, Gunderson, Ragnhild B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bentham Open 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3795404/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24133555
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001307010600
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: In a prospective manner to evaluate the range of acetabular component anteversion actually achieved by the use of a cup positioner in cementless revision and primary THA. METHODS: We operated 71 patients with cementless primary THA, and 26 patients with cementless acetabular revision surgery. We aimed to obtain cup anteversion of 10 to 30° with an impactor-positioner. In all cases we used elevated liners and a ceramic head with diameter 28. At 3 months postoperatively the component versions were measured using CT with the patient in supine position. RESULTS: The acetabular component version in the primary hips ranged from 28° of retroversion to 42° of anteversion with a mean of 17.4 ± 14.0°, while the cup version in the revision hips ranged from 4° of retroversion to 32° of anteversion with a mean of 15.0 ± 9.6°(p=0.427). The anteversion of 40 (56%) of the primary acetabular components were within the target zone of 10 to 30°, while 19 (27%) were below the target zone and and 12 (17%) were above the target range. The anteversion of 19 (73%) of the revision acetabular components were within the target zone, while 6 (23%) were below the target zone and 1 (4%) were above the target range. The differences in distribution between the primary and revision operations were not significant (p=0.183). CONCLUSIONS: The intraoperative estimation of acetabular anteversion by free hand technique in many cases was not within the intended range of 10 to 30° in either primary or revision THA and with no differences between the two series