Biomedical engineering

Surgery

Orientation (vector space)

Geometry

Prosthesis

Implant

Orthodontics

Prosthesis design

Mathematics

Range of motion

Medicine

Rotation (mathematics)

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Background Lewinnek’s recommendation for orienting the cup in THA is criticized because it involves a static assessment of the safe zone and because it does not consider stem geometry. A revised concept of the safe zone should consider those factors, but to our knowledge, this has not been assessed. Questions/purposes (1) To determine the shape, size, and location of target zones for combined cup and stem orientation for a straight stem/hemispheric cup THA to maximize the impingement-free ROM and (2) To determine whether and how these implant positions change as stem anteversion, neck-shaft angle, prosthetic head size and target range of movements are varied. Methods A three-dimensional computer-assisted design model, in which design geometry was expressed in terms of parameters, of a straight stem/hemispheric cup hip prosthesis was designed, its design parameters modified systematically, and each prosthesis model was implanted virtually at predefined component orientations. Functional component orientation referencing to body planes was used: cups were abducted from 20° to 70°, and anteverted from -10° to 40°. Stems were rotated from -10° to 40° anteversion, neck-shaft angles varied from 115° to 143°, and head sizes varied from 28 to 40 mm. Hip movements up to the point of prosthetic impingement were tested, including simple flexion/extension, internal/external rotation, ab/adduction, combinations of these, and activities of daily living that were known to trigger dislocation. For each combination of parameters, the impingement-free combined target zone was determined. Maximizing the size of the combined target zone was the optimization criterion. Results The combined target zones for impingement-free cup orientation had polygonal boundaries. Their size and position in the diagram changed with stem anteversion, neck-shaft angle, head size, and target ROM. The largest target zones were at neck-shaft angles from 125° to 127°, at stem anteversions from 10° to 20°, and at radiographic cup anteversions between 17° and 25°. Cup anteversion and stem anteversion were inverse-linearly correlated supporting the combined-anteversion concept. The range of impingement-free cup inclinations depended on head size, stem anteversion, and neck-shaft angle. For a 127°-neck-shaft angle, the lowest cup inclinations that fell within the target zone were 42° for the 28-mm and 35° for the 40-mm head. Cup anteversion and combined version depended on neck-shaft angle. For head size 32-mm cup, anteversion was 6° for a 115° neck-shaft angle and 25° for a 135°-neck-shaft angle, and combined version was 15° and 34° respectively. Conclusions The shape, size, and location of the combined target zones were dependent on design and implantation parameters of both components. Changing the prosthesis design or changing implantation parameters also changed the combined target zone. A maximized combined target zone was found. It is mandatory to consider both components to determine the accurate impingement-free prosthetic ROM in THA. Clinical Relevance This study accurately defines the hypothetical impingement-free, design-specific component orientation in THA. Transforming it into clinical precision may be the case for navigation and/or robotics, but this is speculative, and as of now, unproven.

The Impingement-free, Prosthesis-specific, and Anatomy-adjusted Combined Target Zone for Component Positioning in THA Depends on Design and Implantation Parameters of both Components