RESEARCH ARTICLE


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



Olav Reikerås*, 1, Ragnhild B. Gunderson2
1 Orthopaedic Departement,
2 Radiological Department, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, N-0027 Oslo, Norway


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 2445
Abstract HTML Views: 1073
PDF Downloads: 338
Total Views/Downloads: 3856
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1161
Abstract HTML Views: 652
PDF Downloads: 236
Total Views/Downloads: 2049



Creative Commons License
© Reikerås and Gunderson; Licensee Bentham Open.

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.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Orthopaedic Departement, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, N-0027 Oslo, Norway; Tel: +4723076010; Fax: +47 23076013; E-mail: olav.reikeras@rikshospitalet.no


Abstract

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

Keywords: Anteversion, acetabular component, arthroplasty, CT, revision.