全髋关节置换术中使用患者特异性“安全区”时脱位率较低。
Low dislocation rates with the use of patient specific "Safe zones" in total hip arthroplasty.
作者信息
Sharma Abhinav K, Cizmic Zlatan, Dennis Douglas A, Kreuzer Stefan W, Miranda Michael A, Vigdorchik Jonathan M
机构信息
University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Ascension Providence Hospital Southfield Campus, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 16001 W Nine Mile Rd., Southfield, MI, 48075, USA.
出版信息
J Orthop. 2021 Aug 21;27:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.009. eCollection 2021 Sep-Oct.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to compare patient-specific acetabular cup target orientation using functional simulation to the Lewinnek Safe Zone (LSZ) and determine associated rates of postoperative dislocation.
METHODS
A retrospective review of 1500 consecutive primary THAs was performed. Inclination, anteversion, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar flexion, and dislocation rates were recorded.
RESULTS
56% of dynamically planned cups were within LSZ (p < 0.05). 6/1500 (0.4%) of these cups dislocated at two year follow-up, and all were within LSZ.
CONCLUSION
Optimal acetabular cup positioning using dynamic imaging differs significantly from historical target parameters but results in low rates of dislocation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III: Retrospective.
摘要
引言
本研究的目的是使用功能模拟将患者特异性髋臼杯目标方向与Lewinnek安全区（LSZ）进行比较，并确定术后脱位的相关发生率。
方法
对1500例连续的初次全髋关节置换术进行回顾性研究。记录倾斜度、前倾角、骨盆倾斜度、骨盆入射角、腰椎前屈度和脱位率。
结果
56%动态规划的髋臼杯位于LSZ内（p<0.05）。在两年随访时，这些髋臼杯中有6/1500（0.4%）发生脱位，且均在LSZ内。
结论
使用动态成像的最佳髋臼杯定位与既往目标参数有显著差异，但脱位率较低。
证据水平
III级：回顾性研究。
相似文献
1
Low dislocation rates with the use of patient specific "Safe zones" in total hip arthroplasty.
J Orthop. 2021 Aug 21;27:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.009. eCollection 2021 Sep-Oct.
2
What Safe Zone? The Vast Majority of Dislocated THAs Are Within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular Component Position.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Feb;474(2):386-91. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4432-5.
3
The Safe Zone Range for Cup Anteversion Is Narrower Than for Inclination in THA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):325-335. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000051.
4
Acetabular Component Position and the Risk of Dislocation Following Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis.
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Mar;32(3):987-991. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Aug 20.
5
Danish survey of acetabular component positioning practice during primary total hip arthroplasty.
Dan Med J. 2017 Apr;64(4).
6
Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Nov 20;95(22):e172. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01014.
7
Acetabular cup position and risk of dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty.
Acta Orthop. 2017 Feb;88(1):10-17. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1251255. Epub 2016 Nov 23.
8
Can a target zone safer than Lewinnek's safe zone be defined to prevent instability of total hip arthroplasties? Case-control study of 56 dislocated THA and 93 matched controls.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Sep;103(5):657-661. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.05.015. Epub 2017 Jun 16.
9
Targeting a New Safe Zone: A Step in the Development of Patient-Specific Component Positioning for Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Jun;44(6):270-6.
10
Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):329-36. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7. Epub 2013 Aug 29.
引用本文的文献
1
MAKO robotic-assisted compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 May 16;20(1):466. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05866-1.
2
Relating total hip replacement and acetabular cup positioning with outcome: A systematic review.
Bioinformation. 2025 Feb 28;21(2):145-154. doi: 10.6026/973206300210145. eCollection 2025.
3
Does Replication of Native Acetabular Anatomy Satisfy Recommended Hip-Spine Targets for Cup Orientation?
JB JS Open Access. 2025 Apr 25;10(2). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00169. eCollection 2025 Apr-Jun.
4
Robotic-Assistance in Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Decreased Dislocation Rates.
Arthroplast Today. 2024 Oct 12;30:101473. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101473. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
Spinopelvic Motion Evaluation in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty and Patient-Specific Target for Acetabular Cup Placement.
J Pers Med. 2024 Dec 19;14(12):1161. doi: 10.3390/jpm14121161.
6
Dynamic change of acetabular component position in total hip arthroplasty based on the spinopelvic classification: a prospective radiographic study.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Dec;34(8):3931-3937. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-04079-2. Epub 2024 Aug 29.
7
Are robotic-assisted and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty associated with superior outcomes in patients who have hip dysplasia?
J Orthop. 2024 Mar 7;53:125-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.03.004. eCollection 2024 Jul.
8
Point-of-Care Orthopedic Oncology Device Development.
Curr Oncol. 2023 Dec 29;31(1):211-228. doi: 10.3390/curroncol31010014.
9
The Empty Ischial Fossa Sign: A Visual Representation of Relative Inadequate Anteversion in the Posteriorly Tilted Pelvis.
Arthroplast Today. 2023 Dec 27;25:101309. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101309. eCollection 2024 Feb.
10
A Novel Method to Calculate Functional Pelvic Tilt Using a Standing Anteroposterior Pelvis Radiograph.
Arthroplast Today. 2023 May 22;21:101145. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101145. eCollection 2023 Jun.
本文引用的文献
1
Review: Trunnionosis leading to modular femoral head dissociation.
J Orthop. 2021 Jan 30;23:199-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.01.008. eCollection 2021 Jan-Feb.
2
Survival and outcomes of different head sizes in primary total hip arthroplasty.
J Orthop. 2019 Oct 9;16(6):A1-A3. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.10.001. eCollection 2019 Nov-Dec.
3
How Can Patients With Mobile Hips and Stiff Lumbar Spines Be Identified Prior to Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Prospective, Diagnostic Cohort Study.
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S255-S261. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.029. Epub 2020 Feb 20.
4
The Majority of Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients With a Stiff Spine Do Not Have an Instrumented Fusion.
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S252-S254. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.031. Epub 2020 Jan 22.
5
Independent restoration of femoral and acetabular height reduces limb length discrepancy and improves reported outcome following total hip arthroplasty.
J Orthop. 2019 May 28;16(6):483-488. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.05.013. eCollection 2019 Nov-Dec.
6
Effects of Sagittal Spinal Alignment on Postural Pelvic Mobility in Total Hip Arthroplasty Candidates.
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Nov;34(11):2663-2668. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.036. Epub 2019 Jun 22.
7
Functional Safe Zone Is Superior to the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Why the Lewinnek Safe Zone Is Not Always Predictive of Stability.
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jan;34(1):3-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.034. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
8
Late Dislocation Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: Spinopelvic Imbalance as a Causative Factor.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Nov 7;100(21):1845-1853. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00078.
9
Risk factors for increased sagittal pelvic motion causing unfavourable orientation of the acetabular component in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.
Bone Joint J. 2018 Jul;100-B(7):845-852. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1599.R1.
10
The Safe Zone Range for Cup Anteversion Is Narrower Than for Inclination in THA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):325-335. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000051.
Zotero 插件