English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Relevant criteria for total hip arthroplasty (THA) planning have been introduced in the literature which include the hip range of motion, bony coverage, anterior cup overhang, leg length discrepancy, edge loading risk, and wear. The optimal implant design and alignment depends on the patient's anatomy and patient-specific functional parameters such as the pelvic tilt. The approaches proposed in literature often consider one or more criteria for THA planning. but to the best of our knowledge none of them follow an integrated approach including all criteria for the definition of a patient-specific combined target zone (PSCTZ). Questions/purposes (1) How can we calculate suitable THA implant and implantation parameters for a specific patient considering all relevant criteria? (2) Are the resulting target zones in the range of conventional safe zones? (3) Do patients who fulfil these combined criteria have a better outcome score? Methods A method is presented that calculates individual target zones based on the morphology, range of motion and load acting on the hip joint and merges them into the PSCTZ. In a retrospective analysis of 198 THA patients, it was calculated whether the patients were inside or outside the Lewinnek safe zone, Dorr combined anteversion range and PSCTZ. The postoperative Harris Hip Scores (HHS) between insiders and outsiders were compared. Results 11 patients were inside the PSCTZ. Patients inside and outside the PSCTZ showed no significant difference in the HHS. However, a significant higher HHS was observed for the insiders of two of the three sub-target zones incorporated in the PSCTZ. By combining the sub-target zones in the PSCTZ, all PSCTZ insiders except one had an HHS higher than 90. Conclusions The results might suggest that, for a prosthesis implanted in the PSCTZ a low outcome score of the patient is less likely than using the conventional safe zones by Lewinnek and Dorr. For future studies, a larger cohort of patients inside the PSCTZ is needed which can only be achieved if the cases are planned prospectively with the method introduced in this paper. Clinical Relevance The method presented in this paper could help the surgeon combining multiple different criteria during THA planning and find the suitable implant design and alignment for a specific patient.

The Patient-Specific Combined Target Zone for Morpho-Functional Planning of Total Hip Arthroplasty