Surface replacement arthroplasty aims to re-create normal hip biomechanics; however the pathoanathomy of the hip, prosthetic component design, surgical technique and other factors may have a significant impact on the range of motion restoration attained following surface replacement arthroplasty. However, there is paucity of information on the effect of such factors.
A computerized three-dimensional hip model was created from preoperative computerized tomography images of a patient who was scheduled for a surface replacement arthroplasty. The effects of the femoral component size, translation and orientation on the range of motion were analysed as was the effect of increasing the seating depth and modification of the version of the acetabular component.
Increasing the femoral component size led to global improvement in range of motion while translation increased range of motion in one direction but reduced it in the opposite direction. Change in the femoral component orientation had minimal effects on range of motion in comparison to the effect of changes in the version of the acetabular component. Increasing the seating depth of the acetabulum only caused reduced range of motion in internal rotation in 90° flexion.
To restore hip range of motion, surgeons performing surface replacement arthroplasty should aim to reproduce the natural femoral head–neck offset. Although increasing the femoral component size may achieve this, more acetabular bone will be resected. Knowing the specific zones of impingement of each arc of movement, selective translation of the femoral component or femoral neck osteoplasty can restore femoral neck offset in more critical areas without affecting acetabular bone stock. Over deepening of the acetabulum or leaving rim osteophytes should also be avoided to prevent impingement.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. A. 2004; 86: 28-39
- Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip.J. Orthop. Sci. 1998; 3: 169-186
- Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips.J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2005; 87: 324-329
- Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation.J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2003; 11: 89-99
- Stem design and dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results and computer modeling.J. Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 8-12
- The femoral head/neck offset and hip resurfacing.J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2007; 89: 9-15
- Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. A. 2004; 86: 2015-2021
- Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes.J. Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 11-19
- Symposium on Surface Replacement Arthroplasty of the Hip. Biomechanics: multifactorial design choices–an essential compromise?.Orthop. Clin. North Am. 1982; 13: 681-707
- The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head–neck ratios.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2000; 82: 315-321
- Operative correction of an unstable total hip arthroplasty.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1992; 74: 1334-1343
- Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty.J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2006; 88: 721-726
- Range of motion in contemporary total hip arthroplasty. The impact of modular head–neck components.J. Arthroplasty. 1991; 6: 97-101
Lavigne, M., Ganapathi, M., Roy, A.G., Vendittoli, P.A., accepted for publication. Painful impingement of the hip joint after total hip resurfacing: a report of two cases. J. Arthroplasty.
- Importance of head diameter, clearance, and cup wall thickness in elastohydrodynamic lubrication analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses.Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H]. 2006; 220: 695-704
- Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention.Clin. Orthop. 1990; : 159-170
- A study of the factors in hip replacement dislocation. Part 1.Nurs. Stand. 1996; 11: 33-38
- Incidence rates of dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and deep infection during the first six months after elective total hip replacement.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. A. 2003; 85: 20-26
- Influence of the clearance on in vitro tribology of large diameter metal-on-metal articulations pertaining to resurfacing hip implants.Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2005; 36 (vii): 135-142
- Complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2005; 36 (ix): 187-193
- A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement.J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2006; 88: 997-1002
- The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty.Clin. Biomech. 2005; 20: 723-728
- Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 1999; 119: 263-266
Published online: September 17, 2007
Accepted: July 11, 2007
Received: April 19, 2007
© 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.