Acetabular Component Anteversion in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Observational Study
Olav Reikerås*, 1, Ragnhild B. Gunderson2
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2013
First Page: 600
Last Page: 604
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-7-600
Article History:Received Date: 5/3/2013
Revision Received Date: 18/6/2013
Acceptance Date: 23/6/2013
Electronic publication date: 4 /10/2013
Collection year: 2013
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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.
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.
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).
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