We have located links that may give you full text access.
Interest of an intraoperative limb-length and offset measurement device in total hip arthroplasty.
INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) seeks to restore a stable, mobile and pain-free joint. This requires good implant positioning and peroperative restoration of limb-length and femoral offset.
HYPOTHESIS: A mechanical measurement device (length and offset optimization device [LOOD]) fixed to the pelvis can optimize lower-limb length and offset control during THA performed on a posterolateral approach.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two prospective THA series were compared: 32 using the LOOD and 26 without. Patients with more than 5mm preoperative limb-length discrepancy were excluded. The intraoperative target was to restore individual anatomy. Radiographic analysis was based on pre- and postoperative AP pelvic weight-bearing views in upright posture, feet aligned, with comparison to peroperative LOOD data.
RESULTS: Mean deviation from target length (i.e., pre- to postoperative length differential) was 2.31 mm (range, 0.04-10.6mm) in patients operated on using the LOOD versus 6.96 mm (0.01-178 mm) without LOOD (P=0.0013). Mean deviation from target offset was 3.96 (0.45-13.50) mm with LOOD versus 10.16 (0.93-28.81) without (P=0.0199). There was no significant difference between operative and radiographic measurements of length deviation using LOOD (P=0.4); those for offset, however, differed significantly (P=0.02).
DISCUSSION: The LOOD guides control of limb-length and offset during THA on a posterolateral approach. Reliability seems to be better for limb-length than for offset. It is a simple and undemanding means of controlling limb-length and offset during THA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective case-control study.
HYPOTHESIS: A mechanical measurement device (length and offset optimization device [LOOD]) fixed to the pelvis can optimize lower-limb length and offset control during THA performed on a posterolateral approach.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two prospective THA series were compared: 32 using the LOOD and 26 without. Patients with more than 5mm preoperative limb-length discrepancy were excluded. The intraoperative target was to restore individual anatomy. Radiographic analysis was based on pre- and postoperative AP pelvic weight-bearing views in upright posture, feet aligned, with comparison to peroperative LOOD data.
RESULTS: Mean deviation from target length (i.e., pre- to postoperative length differential) was 2.31 mm (range, 0.04-10.6mm) in patients operated on using the LOOD versus 6.96 mm (0.01-178 mm) without LOOD (P=0.0013). Mean deviation from target offset was 3.96 (0.45-13.50) mm with LOOD versus 10.16 (0.93-28.81) without (P=0.0199). There was no significant difference between operative and radiographic measurements of length deviation using LOOD (P=0.4); those for offset, however, differed significantly (P=0.02).
DISCUSSION: The LOOD guides control of limb-length and offset during THA on a posterolateral approach. Reliability seems to be better for limb-length than for offset. It is a simple and undemanding means of controlling limb-length and offset during THA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective case-control study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app