We have located links that may give you full text access.
Measuring stem anteversion after total hip arthroplasty: posterior condylar tangent versus transepicondylar axis.
Skeletal Radiology 2021 Februrary 4
OBJECTIVE: Stem anteversion in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been measured using two different distal references, the posterior condyle (PC) or the transepicondylar axis (TEA). The reliability, the difference in value between these two techniques, and the possible confounding factors are scarcely known. Aims of this work were to assess (1) the intraclass correlation and the difference between the two measurement techniques and (2) the possible influence of condylar dysmorphisms on the anteversion value discrepancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of post-THA CT scans were selected, excluding hip dysplasia, end-stage knee osteoarthritis, and replaced knees. Using a surgical planning software, stem anteversion was measured using the PC or the TEA reference. The intraclass reliability was assessed. The anteroposterior femoral condyle diameters were measured: the difference and the ratio were measured and correlated with the stem anteversion values.
RESULTS: 91 CT scans were included. Inter/intra-observer TEA measurements were more reliable than PC. The intraclass correlation between PC and TEA anteversion measurements was good, 0.954 (CI 95% 0.922-0965). The mean difference between PC and TEA anteversion was 5.27 ± 2.41°. The difference and the ratio between the two anteroposterior condyle diameters did not influence the anteversion difference (respectively, p 0.797 and p 0.901).
CONCLUSIONS: TEA and PC demonstrated to achieve a good correlation, not dependent from the condyle morphology. However, the difference between the two measurements (5°) can severely influence the combined anteversion (10-20%): due to clinical applicability and better inter/intra-observer agreement, TEA should be preferred for measuring stem anteversion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of post-THA CT scans were selected, excluding hip dysplasia, end-stage knee osteoarthritis, and replaced knees. Using a surgical planning software, stem anteversion was measured using the PC or the TEA reference. The intraclass reliability was assessed. The anteroposterior femoral condyle diameters were measured: the difference and the ratio were measured and correlated with the stem anteversion values.
RESULTS: 91 CT scans were included. Inter/intra-observer TEA measurements were more reliable than PC. The intraclass correlation between PC and TEA anteversion measurements was good, 0.954 (CI 95% 0.922-0965). The mean difference between PC and TEA anteversion was 5.27 ± 2.41°. The difference and the ratio between the two anteroposterior condyle diameters did not influence the anteversion difference (respectively, p 0.797 and p 0.901).
CONCLUSIONS: TEA and PC demonstrated to achieve a good correlation, not dependent from the condyle morphology. However, the difference between the two measurements (5°) can severely influence the combined anteversion (10-20%): due to clinical applicability and better inter/intra-observer agreement, TEA should be preferred for measuring stem anteversion.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Finerenone: From the Mechanism of Action to Clinical Use in Kidney Disease.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
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