Cargando…
Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty
The aim of this study was to compare acetabular offset, femoral offset, and global offset measurements obtained after total hip arthroplasty (THA) between a two-dimensional (2D) method and a three-dimensional (3D) method. The subjects were 89 patients with unilateral osteoarthritis who underwent pri...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314396/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35879390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16952-3 |
_version_ | 1784754312502575104 |
---|---|
author | Tone, Shine Hasegawa, Masahiro Naito, Yohei Wakabayashi, Hiroki Sudo, Akihiro |
author_facet | Tone, Shine Hasegawa, Masahiro Naito, Yohei Wakabayashi, Hiroki Sudo, Akihiro |
author_sort | Tone, Shine |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to compare acetabular offset, femoral offset, and global offset measurements obtained after total hip arthroplasty (THA) between a two-dimensional (2D) method and a three-dimensional (3D) method. The subjects were 89 patients with unilateral osteoarthritis who underwent primary THA at our institution. Acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were measured by each of the 2D and 3D methods in native and implanted hips. In native hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 32.4 ± 3.3, 32.7 ± 4.5, 65.1 ± 5.7 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 32.3 ± 3.1, 38.1 ± 4.0, 70.4 ± 4.9 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. In implanted hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 27.6 ± 4.1, 33.8 ± 7.8, 61.4 ± 8.5 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 27.6 ± 3.9, 41.8 ± 6.2, 69.4 ± 7.2 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. There was significant difference in femoral and global offsets between the 2D and 3D methods in both native and implanted hips. Comparison of the 2D and 3D methods for evaluation of acetabular, femoral, and global offsets after THA clarified the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9314396 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93143962022-07-27 Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty Tone, Shine Hasegawa, Masahiro Naito, Yohei Wakabayashi, Hiroki Sudo, Akihiro Sci Rep Article The aim of this study was to compare acetabular offset, femoral offset, and global offset measurements obtained after total hip arthroplasty (THA) between a two-dimensional (2D) method and a three-dimensional (3D) method. The subjects were 89 patients with unilateral osteoarthritis who underwent primary THA at our institution. Acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were measured by each of the 2D and 3D methods in native and implanted hips. In native hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 32.4 ± 3.3, 32.7 ± 4.5, 65.1 ± 5.7 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 32.3 ± 3.1, 38.1 ± 4.0, 70.4 ± 4.9 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. In implanted hips, mean acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were 27.6 ± 4.1, 33.8 ± 7.8, 61.4 ± 8.5 mm, respectively, by the 2D method, and 27.6 ± 3.9, 41.8 ± 6.2, 69.4 ± 7.2 mm, respectively, by the 3D method. There was significant difference in femoral and global offsets between the 2D and 3D methods in both native and implanted hips. Comparison of the 2D and 3D methods for evaluation of acetabular, femoral, and global offsets after THA clarified the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9314396/ /pubmed/35879390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16952-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Tone, Shine Hasegawa, Masahiro Naito, Yohei Wakabayashi, Hiroki Sudo, Akihiro Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title | Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title_full | Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title_fullStr | Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title_short | Comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
title_sort | comparison between two- and three-dimensional methods for offset measurements after total hip arthroplasty |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314396/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35879390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16952-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT toneshine comparisonbetweentwoandthreedimensionalmethodsforoffsetmeasurementsaftertotalhiparthroplasty AT hasegawamasahiro comparisonbetweentwoandthreedimensionalmethodsforoffsetmeasurementsaftertotalhiparthroplasty AT naitoyohei comparisonbetweentwoandthreedimensionalmethodsforoffsetmeasurementsaftertotalhiparthroplasty AT wakabayashihiroki comparisonbetweentwoandthreedimensionalmethodsforoffsetmeasurementsaftertotalhiparthroplasty AT sudoakihiro comparisonbetweentwoandthreedimensionalmethodsforoffsetmeasurementsaftertotalhiparthroplasty |