PubMed · 15718914
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Carl L Stanitski. The pseudoacetabulum.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bpo.0000154226.77609.d9
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Reduction of the range of motion (ROM) until prosthetic impingement of a total hip replacement may lead to frequent impingement, subluxation and dislocation especially for patients with good hip movement. The ROM until prosthetic impingement can be calculated using the technical ROM (theta) and the cup and neck positions by a previously created mathematical formula. A larger (theta) with proper cup and neck positions results in a larger ROM. However there was only one paper written in English, which revealed the optimum theoretical combination of cup and neck anteversions. ROM of more than 110 degrees flexion, 30 degrees internal-rotation at 90 degrees flexion, 30 degrees extension and 40 degrees external-rotation were defined as the criteria for essential ROM for ADL. The safe-zones for combined cup anteversion (betaanat) and neck anteversion (b) were defined as the areas that fulfill all the criteria of ROM without prosthetic impingement. The safe-zones were created for 35 degrees , 45 degrees and 55 degrees cup abductions (alpha) and for 120 degrees and 135 degrees (theta). The safe-zones for combined (betaanat) and (b) were much larger for a 135 degrees (theta) than a 120 degrees (theta). Their safe-zones showed that (b) should be reduced if (betaanat) is increased and choosing a lower (alpha) requires that the sum of (betaanat) and (b) should be higher and vice versa. A (theta) of more than 135 degrees is recommended as it further increases the size of the safe-zone and provides a larger ROM, and the optimum values of combined cup and neck anteversions can be estimated by the formula: (alpha) + (betaanat) + 0.77(b) = 84.3.
A computational model was developed to identify the sites of third body particle embedment in a total hip acetabular component surface that are most problematic in terms of roughening the overpassing regions of the femoral head counterface, leading in turn to most severely accelerated polyethylene wear. The analytical approach used was to calculate loci of acetabular sites that, during the gait cycle, overpass previously documented regions of kinetically most critical femoral head roughening. Instantaneous local contact stress and sliding distance were postulated as factors contributing to the severity of the femoral head scratching/roughening which would be expected, due to otherwise-similar particles embedded along each such acetabular overpass locus. The computational results showed that the location of debris embedment was a potent determinant of the amount of polyethylene wear acceleration expected. The data also showed that the supero-lateral aspect of the acetabular cup is consistently and by far the most problematic area for third body particle embedment.
INTRODUCTION: For the reconstruction of acetabular bone defects different types of acetabular reinforcement rings are being used. In clinical practice, these implants showed to some extent good long-term results. In the present work pitfalls and complications after the implantation of acetabular reinforcement rings as well as possible solutions are being discussed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the first case recurrent dislocation was caused by the malposition of the acetabular component with an impingement of the protruding bone cement and the anterior edge of the acetabular ring as well as muscle insufficiency as a result of the shortening of the leg length. The second case revealed an impingement of the iliopsoas tendon due to a protruding acetabular reinforcement ring. During revision, bone cement was used to smoothen the protruding anterior edge of the acetabular reconstruction ring in order to obtain a relieved sliding of the tendon. Furthermore, we report on the case of a delayed neuropathy of the sciatic nerve after reconstruction of the acetabulum with an acetabular reinforcement ring. RESULTS: Intraoperatively an impingement of the sciatic nerve at the protruding dorsal edge of the acetabular reinforcement ring and the surrounding scar tissue was found. In a further case an aseptic loosening of an acetabular reinforcement ring caused the formation of an excessive granuloma with a large intrapelvic portion. The granuloma led to persisting senso-motoric deficits of the femoral nerve. In summary, based on these clinical cases possible pitfalls, associated with the use of acetabular reinforcement rings, are shown. The mal-positioning and the intra-operative re-shaping of the implant by the surgeon are pointed out as the substantial factors for the occurrence of an impingement phenomenon and total hip instability. Furthermore, in case of an adequate orientation of the cemented polyethylene insert an improper position of the acetabular ring which results in protruding edges has to be considered as a cause of a prosthetic impingement. CONCLUSION: The cases presented emphasize the necessity of prevention of such pitfalls intra-operatively as well as accurate analysis of implant failures. Furthermore, they suggest explicit preoperative planning before deciding on the strategy of revision surgery of acetabular reinforcement rings.