Search

Objective: To determine the comparability among 10 radiographic anteversion methods for acetabular cup orientation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) found in the literature and the "gold" standard of assessing the anteversion with CT. Methods: This is a retrospective study that blindly compares 10 different conventional radiographic anteversion measurements with the "gold" standard, the measurement of anteversion on the transverse plane of the 3‐D images made with CT. The patient archiving and communications system (PACS) was systematically searched for subjects that had undergone a CT angiogram of the abdomen and lower extremities, including the pelvis, had at least one THA in situ and had undergone anterior‐posterior (AP) and cross‐lateral pelvic radiography between January 2013 and August 2016 in the Diakonessenhuis Hospital Utrecht/Zeist, a non‐academic institution. CT scans of patients (n = 16) were systematically collected. Three observers independently measured cup anteversion from radiographs, using a total of 10 different methods, and measured the "gold" standard on CT images. The outcomes of the 10 radiographic anteversion were compared in terms of linear correlation with the "gold" standard on CT images. Results: The correlations of the radiographic measured anteversions with the "gold" standard measured on CT images were 0.528 for the method of Liaw, 0.556 for Wan, 0.562 for the cross‐lateral method, 0.586 for Hassan, 0.594 for Dorr, 0.602 for Lewinnek, 0.624 for Widmer, 0.671 for the lateral CT, 0.747 for Ackland, and 0.771 for the method of Riten Pradham. Conclusion: Anteversion measurement methods represent different projectional angles of the acetabular cup in different planes around different axes. Therefore, they differ from the "gold" standard and are not interchangeable, as is shown by this study. We consider the anatomical anteversion in the transverse plane rotating around the longitudinal axis as the "gold" standard and recommend avoiding using the term anteversion for other projectional angles in different planes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Dislocation is 1 of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty but dislocation rates have not changed in the past decades, compromising patients' well-being. Acetabular cup orientation plays a key role in implant stability and has been widely studied. This article investigates whether there is a consensus on optimal cup orientation, which is necessary when using a navigation system. Methods: A systematic search of the literature in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed (March 2017) to identify articles that investigated the direct relationship between cup orientation and dislocation, including a thorough evaluation of postoperative cup orientation assessment methods. Results: 28 relevant articles evaluating a direct relation between dislocation and cup orientation could not come to a consensus. The key reason is a lack of uniformity in the assessment of cup orientation. Cup orientation is assessed with different imaging modalities, different methodologies, different definitions for inclination and anteversion, several reference planes and distinct patient positions. Conclusions: All available studies lack uniformity in cup orientation assessment; therefore it is impossible to reach consensus on optimal cup orientation. Using navigation systems for placement of the cup is inevitably flawed when using different definitions in the preoperative planning, peroperative placement and postoperative evaluation. Further methodological development is required to assess cup orientation. Consequently, the postoperative assessment should be uniform, thus differentiating between anterior and posterior dislocation, use the same definitions for inclination and anteversion with the same reference plane and with the patient in the same position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]