TY - JOUR
T1 - In vivo kinematic analysis of replaced hip during stationary cycling and computer simulation of optimal cup positioning against prosthetic impingement
AU - Komiyama, Keisuke
AU - Hamai, Satoshi
AU - Ikebe, Satoru
AU - Yoshimoto, Kensei
AU - Higaki, Hidehiko
AU - Shiomoto, Kyohei
AU - Gondo, Hirotaka
AU - Hara, Daisuke
AU - Wang, Yifeng
AU - Nakashima, Yasuharu
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 25870499 , grant from the Japan Orthopaedics and Traumatology Foundation , Inc. (No. 263 ), and grant from the Nakatomi Foundation .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2019/8
Y1 - 2019/8
N2 - Background: Dynamic hip kinematics during stationary cycling after total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been unclear. Furthermore, no computer simulation of optimal cup position based on in vivo kinematics has yet been assessed. Methods: This study consisted of 7 patients who underwent unilateral primary THA for symptomatic osteoarthritis. Using a flat-panel X-ray detector, continuous radiographs were obtained during stationary cycling. We analyzed the three-dimensional replaced hip kinematics from the top to the bottom position of the crank using image-matching techniques and quantified minimum liner-to-stem neck distance. Simulation analyses with in vivo kinematics were performed to examine patient-specific optimal cup placement against prosthetic impingement. Findings: During stationary cycling, pelvis showed 27.1° of posterior tilt on average without significant change. Hip flexed by 59.4° and 19.3° on average at the top and bottom positions, respectively. Minimum liner-to-neck distance was 8.8 mm on average at the bottom position. Liner-to-neck, bone-to-bone, or bone-to-component impingement was not observed at any positions in any hips. Simulation analysis of cup placement showed that larger cup anteversion, inclination, and use of elevated liner significantly decreased the minimum distance between posterior liner and stem neck. Cup anteversion of more than 30° with elevated liner could cause posterior liner-to-neck impingement at bottom position. Interpretation: Stationary cycling after THA provides no excessive hip range of motion or liner-to-neck contact. Cup placement and use of elevated liner significantly influence the minimum liner-to-neck distance, in some cases simulating posterior prosthetic impingement.
AB - Background: Dynamic hip kinematics during stationary cycling after total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been unclear. Furthermore, no computer simulation of optimal cup position based on in vivo kinematics has yet been assessed. Methods: This study consisted of 7 patients who underwent unilateral primary THA for symptomatic osteoarthritis. Using a flat-panel X-ray detector, continuous radiographs were obtained during stationary cycling. We analyzed the three-dimensional replaced hip kinematics from the top to the bottom position of the crank using image-matching techniques and quantified minimum liner-to-stem neck distance. Simulation analyses with in vivo kinematics were performed to examine patient-specific optimal cup placement against prosthetic impingement. Findings: During stationary cycling, pelvis showed 27.1° of posterior tilt on average without significant change. Hip flexed by 59.4° and 19.3° on average at the top and bottom positions, respectively. Minimum liner-to-neck distance was 8.8 mm on average at the bottom position. Liner-to-neck, bone-to-bone, or bone-to-component impingement was not observed at any positions in any hips. Simulation analysis of cup placement showed that larger cup anteversion, inclination, and use of elevated liner significantly decreased the minimum distance between posterior liner and stem neck. Cup anteversion of more than 30° with elevated liner could cause posterior liner-to-neck impingement at bottom position. Interpretation: Stationary cycling after THA provides no excessive hip range of motion or liner-to-neck contact. Cup placement and use of elevated liner significantly influence the minimum liner-to-neck distance, in some cases simulating posterior prosthetic impingement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067422078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067422078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.035
DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.035
M3 - Article
C2 - 31229697
AN - SCOPUS:85067422078
SN - 0268-0033
VL - 68
SP - 175
EP - 181
JO - Clinical Biomechanics
JF - Clinical Biomechanics
ER -