Murphy William S, Yun Ho Hyun, Hayden Brett, Kowal Jens H, Murphy Stephen B
W. S. Murphy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA H.H. Yun, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Veterans Hospital, Seoul, South Korea B. Hayden, S. B. Murphy, Center for Computer Assisted and Reconstructive Surgery, New England Baptist Hospital, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA J. H. Kowal, Surgical Planning Associates, Inc, Boston, MA, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):325-335. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000051.
Cup malposition is a common cause of impingement, limitation of ROM, acceleration of bearing wear, liner fracture, and instability in THA. Previous studies of the safe zone based on plain radiographs have limitations inherent to measuring angles from two-dimensional projections. The current study uses CT to measure component position in stable and unstable hips to assess the presence of a safe zone for cup position in THA.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does acetabular component orientation, when measured on CT, differ in stable components and those revised for recurrent instability? (2) Do CT data support historic safe zone definitions for component orientation in THA?
We identified 34 hips that had undergone revision of the acetabulum for recurrent instability that also had a CT scan of the pelvis between August 2003 and February 2017. We also identified 175 patients with stable hip replacements who also had a CT study for preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation of the contralateral side. For each CT study, one observer analyzed major factors including acetabular orientation, femoral anteversion, combined anteversion (the sum of femoral and anatomic anteversion), pelvic tilt, total offset difference, head diameter, age, sex, and body mass index. These measures were then compared among stable hips, hips with cup revision for anterior instability, and hips with cup revision for posterior instability. We used a clinically relevant measurement of operative anteversion and inclination as opposed to the historic use of radiographic anteversion and inclination. The percentage of unstable hips in the historic Lewinnek safe zone was calculated, and a new safe zone was proposed based on an area with no unstable hips.
Anteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had higher operative anteversion of the cup (44° ± 12° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, 13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5°-21°; p = 0.003), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (40° ± 6° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, 14°; 95% CI, 10°-18°; p < 0.001), and combined tilt-adjusted anteversion of the cup (64° ± 10° versus 54° ± 19°, respectively; mean difference, 10°; 95% CI, 1°-19°; p = 0.028). Posteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had lower operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 15° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, -12°; 95% CI, -5° to -18°; p = 0.001), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 13° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, -8°; 95% CI, -14° to -2°; p = 0.014), pelvic tilt (0° ± 6° versus 4° ± 6°, respectively; mean difference, -4°; 95% CI, -7° to -1°; p = 0.007), and anatomic cup anteversion (25° ± 18° versus 34° ± 12°, respectively; mean difference, -9°; 95% CI, -1° to -17°; p = 0.033). Thirty-two percent of the unstable hips were located in the Lewinnek safe zone (11 of 34; 10 posterior dislocations, one anterior dislocation). In addition, a safe zone with no unstable hips was identified within 43° ± 12° of operative inclination and 31° ± 8° of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion.
The current study supports the notion of a safe zone for acetabular component orientation based on CT. However, the results demonstrate that the historic Lewinnek safe zone is not a reliable predictor of future stability. Analysis of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and operative inclination demonstrates a new safe zone where no hips were revised for recurrent instability that is narrower for tilt-adjusted operative anteversion than for operative inclination. Tilt-adjusted operative anteversion is significantly different between stable and unstable hips, and surgeons should therefore prioritize assessment of preoperative pelvic tilt and accurate placement in operative anteversion. With improvements in patient-specific cup orientation goals and acetabular component placement, further refinement of a safe zone with CT data may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications.
Level III, diagnostic study.
髋臼位置不当是全髋关节置换术(THA)中撞击、活动范围受限、轴承磨损加速、衬垫破裂及关节不稳定的常见原因。以往基于X线平片的安全区研究存在从二维投影测量角度的固有局限性。本研究采用CT测量稳定和不稳定髋关节的假体位置,以评估THA中髋臼位置安全区的存在情况。
问题/目的:(1)在CT上测量时,稳定假体与因反复不稳定而翻修的假体的髋臼假体方向是否不同?(2)CT数据是否支持THA中假体方向的既往安全区定义?
我们确定了34例因反复不稳定而接受髋臼翻修的髋关节,这些髋关节在2003年8月至2017年2月期间也进行了骨盆CT扫描。我们还确定了175例髋关节置换稳定的患者,他们也进行了CT检查,用于对侧术前规划和术中导航。对于每项CT研究,一名观察者分析了主要因素,包括髋臼方向、股骨前倾角、联合前倾角(股骨和解剖学前倾角之和)、骨盆倾斜度、总偏移差异、股骨头直径、年龄、性别和体重指数。然后将这些测量值在稳定髋关节、因前侧不稳定而进行髋臼翻修的髋关节和因后侧不稳定而进行髋臼翻修的髋关节之间进行比较。我们使用了与既往X线片前倾角和倾斜度不同的手术前倾角和倾斜度的临床相关测量方法。计算了既往Lewinnek安全区内不稳定髋关节的百分比,并基于无不稳定髋关节的区域提出了一个新的安全区。
与稳定髋关节相比,前侧不稳定髋关节的髋臼手术前倾角更高(分别为44°±12°和31°±11°;平均差异为13°;95%置信区间[CI]为5°-21°;p = 0.003),髋臼倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角更高(分别为40°±6°和26°±10°;平均差异为14°;95%CI为10°-18°;p < 0.001),以及髋臼联合倾斜度调整后的前倾角更高(分别为64°±10°和54°±19°;平均差异为10°;95%CI为1°-19°;p = 0.028)。与稳定髋关节相比,后侧不稳定髋关节的髋臼手术前倾角更低(分别为19°±15°和31°±11°;平均差异为-12°;95%CI为-5°至-18°;p = 0.001),髋臼倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角更低(分别为19°±13°和26°±10°;平均差异为-8°;95%CI为-14°至-2°;p = 0.014),骨盆倾斜度更低(分别为0°±6°和4°±6°;平均差异为-4°;95%CI为-7°至-1°;p = 0.007),以及解剖学髋臼前倾角更低(分别为25°±18°和34°±12°;平均差异为-9°;95%CI为-1°至-17°;p = 0.033)。32%的不稳定髋关节位于Lewinnek安全区内(34例中的11例;10例后侧脱位,1例前侧脱位)。此外,在手术倾斜度43°±12°和倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角31°±8°范围内确定了一个无不稳定髋关节的安全区。
本研究支持基于CT的髋臼假体方向安全区的概念。然而,结果表明既往Lewinnek安全区并非未来稳定性的可靠预测指标。对倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角和手术倾斜度的分析显示了一个新的安全区,在该区域内没有因反复不稳定而进行翻修的髋关节,且倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角的安全区比手术倾斜度的安全区更窄。稳定和不稳定髋关节之间倾斜度调整后的手术前倾角有显著差异,因此外科医生应优先评估术前骨盆倾斜度并准确放置手术前倾角。随着针对患者的髋臼假体方向目标和髋臼假体放置的改进利用CT数据进一步完善安全区可能会降低髋臼位置不当及其相关并发症的发生率。
III级,诊断性研究。