Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33(05): 340-347
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714412
Original Research

Measurement of Acetabular Component Position in Total Hip Arthroplasty in Dogs: Comparison of a Radio-Opaque Cup Position Assessment Device Using Fluoroscopy with CT Assessment and Direct Measurement

Brianna N. Dalbeth
1   Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Grafton, Massachusetts, United States
,
William M. Karlin
1   Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Grafton, Massachusetts, United States
,
Ross A. Lirtzman
2   Arizona Canine Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
,
Michael P. Kowaleski
1   Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Grafton, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding The study was funded by the Tufts Orthopedic Research Laboratory and Arizona Canine Orthopedics & Sports Medicine.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare measurements of angle of lateral opening (ALO) and version determined using a radioopaque cup position assessment device imaged with fluoroscopy to measurements obtained by CT and direct measurement in a cadaveric model. Our null hypothesis was that there would not be any difference in the angles measured by the techniques.

Methods Six cadavers were implanted with BFX acetabular components. The CPAD was placed and images were obtained with fluoroscopy. Measurements were obtained from the radiopaque marker bars on the CPAD device, and version and ALO were calculated. The ALO and version were determined by CT and DM. Comparisons were made using a two-way analysis of variance and a generalized linear model procedure analysis.

Results There were no significant differences between the measurements for ALO (p = 0.275) or version (p = 0.226). Correlation between methods was 0.948 and 0.951 for ALO and version, respectively. The mean difference (standard deviation [SD], and 95% confidence interval [CI]) for ALO were: CT versus CPAD 1.85 degrees (± 2.32 degrees [-2.99–3.31]), CT versus DM 1.96 degrees (± 1.99 degrees [−2.2–4.27]), CPAD versus DM1.74 degrees (±2.21 degrees [−1.13 and 5.24]). The mean difference (SD [CI]) for version was CT versus CPAD 2.86 degrees (±1.56 degrees [ −2.63–1.69]), CT versus DM 1.10 degrees (±1.42 degrees [−1.57–2.09]), CPAD versus DM 1.07 degrees (±0.76 degrees [0.13–2.09]).

Clinical Relevance The results demonstrate that intraoperative imaging in cadaveric specimens with the CPAD is an accurate method to determine ALO and version of the acetabular component.

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty - acetabular component - angle of lateral opening - cup position assessment device - canine cadaver

Author Contributions

R. Lirtzman contributed to the concept and design of the Cup Positioning Assessment Device. All authors contributed to the study design. B Dalbeth, W. M. Karlin and R. Lirtzman contributed to the data acquisition. B Dalbeth, W. M. Karlin and M. Kowaleski contributed to analysis and interpretation of data. All authors drafted and revised the manuscript and approved submission.


Note

This study was presented in part at the ACVS Surgery Summit in Phoenix, Arizona, 25 October 2018.




Publication History

Received: 04 November 2019

Accepted: 20 May 2020

Article published online:
24 August 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Bergh MS, Budsberg SC. A systematic review of the literature describing the efficacy of surgical treatments for canine hip dysplasia (1948-2012). Vet Surg 2014; 43 (05) 501-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 DeYoung DJ, DeYoung BA, Aberman HA, Kenna RV, Hungerford DS. Implantation of an uncemented total hip prosthesis. Technique and initial results of 100 arthroplasties. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (03) 168-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Edwards MR, Egger EL, Schwarz PD. Aseptic loosening of the femoral implant after cemented total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 11 cases in 10 dogs (1991-1995). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 211 (05) 580-586
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Guerrero TG, Montavon PM. Zurich cementless total hip replacement: retrospective evaluation of 2nd generation implants in 60 dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 70-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Olmstead ML. The canine cemented modular total hip prosthesis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1995; 31 (02) 109-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bergh MS, Gilley RS, Shofer FS, Kapatkin AS. Complications and radiographic findings following cemented total hip replacement: a retrospective evaluation of 97 dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19 (03) 172-179
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Budsberg SC, Chambers JN, Lue SL, Foutz TL, Reece L. Prospective evaluation of ground reaction forces in dogs undergoing unilateral total hip replacement. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57 (12) 1781-1785
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Massat BJ, Vasseur PB. Clinical and radiographic results of total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 96 cases (1986-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994; 205 (03) 448-454
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hunter S, Dyce J, Butkus L, Olmstead M. Acetabular cup displacement after polyethlyene-cement interface failure: a complication of total hip replacement in seven dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 99-104
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Torres BT, Budsberg SC. Revision of cemented total hip arthroplasty with cementless components in three dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Conzemius MG, Vandervoort J. Total joint replacement in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35 (05) 1213-1231 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Liska WD, Israel SK, Poteet BA. Polar gap after cementless total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2019; 48 (03) 321-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dyce J, Wisner ER, Wang Q, Olmstead ML. Evaluation of risk factors for luxation after total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (06) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nelson LL, Dyce J, Shott S. Risk factors for ventral luxation in canine total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (07) 644-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Peck JN, Marcellin-Little DJ. Advances in small animal joint replacement. 1st edition. Ames: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Milone M, Vigdorchik J, Schwarzkopf R, Jerabek SA. Patient positioning is not reliable in total hip arthroplasty. . Presented at: The International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty 29th Annual Congress; Oct 5–8, 2016; Boston, MA
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Renwick A, Gemmill T, Pink J, Brodbelt D, McKee M. Radiographic evaluation of BFX acetabular component position in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (05) 610-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dyce J, Wisner ER, Schrader SC, Wang Q, Olmstead ML. Radiographic evaluation of acetabular component position in dogs. Vet Surg 2001; 30 (01) 28-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Johnson KA. Piermattei's Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 20 BioMedtrix universal canine hip system. Surgical technique for BFX cementless and CFX cemented implants, BioMedtrix, Boonton, New Jersey. Released August 28, 2007
    PubMed
  • 21 Leasure JO, Peck JN, Villamil A, Fiore KL, Tano CA. Inter- and intra-observer variability of radiography and computed tomography for evaluation of Zurich cementless acetabular cup placement ex vivo. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (06) 507-514
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Aman AM, Wendelburg KL. Assessment of acetabular cup positioning from a lateral radiographic projection after total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2013; 42 (04) 406-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Baxter JA, Barlow T, Karthikeyan S, Mayo DJ, King RJ. The accuracy of automatic calibration of digital pelvic radiographs using two different scale markers: a comparative study. Hip Int 2012; 22 (01) 82-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I. A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (01) 136-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Conn KS, Clarke MT, Hallett JP. A simple guide to determine the magnification of radiographs and to improve the accuracy of preoperative templating. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (02) 269-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hummel DW, Lanz OI, Werre SR. Complications of cementless total hip replacement. A retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23 (06) 424-432
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gemmill TJ, Pink J, Renwick A. , et al. Hybrid cemented/cementless total hip replacement in dogs: seventy-eight consecutive joint replacements. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (05) 621-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cross AR, Newell SM, Chambers JN, Shultz KB, Kubilis PS. Acetabular component orientation as an indicator of implant luxation in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (06) 517-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hayes GM, Ramirez J, Langley Hobbs SJ. Use of the cumulative summation technique to quantitatively assess a surgical learning curve: canine total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar