BACKGROUND

Achieving accurate and consistent acetabular component orientation remains a major challenge in total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We used a pelvic model to compare freehand techniques vs mechanical and anatomical alignment guides in achieving a target operative inclination (OI) and operative anteversion (OA). Thirty subjects comprising consultant orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic trainees, and nonsurgical staff positioned an acetabular component in a pelvic model using 3 different methods for guiding inclination and another 3 for guiding version.

RESULTS

Using either a standard mechanical alignment guide (MAG) or a spirit level MAG technique eliminated outliers from target OI, while the freehand method resulted in 46.7% of measurements outside the OI target range. The spirit level MAG technique significantly outperformed the standard MAG technique in median unsigned deviation from target OI (0.8° vs 2.1°, < .001). Either method of referencing the transverse acetabular ligament for version yielded lower deviations from target OA than the freehand method and fewer outliers from the ±5° target range. Surgical experience was not a significant factor for accurately achieving target OI and OA.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in an idealized in vitro model, a wide range of OI and OA is seen with the freehand technique of cup placement by subjects of all levels of surgical experience. Using either a standard MAG or a spirit level MAG reduces deviations in target OI, with the spirit level MAG method yielding the best accuracy. Using the transverse acetabular ligament to guide cup anteversion yields more accurate OA.