Skip to main content
Download PDF

Insufficient stem antetorsion and lower cup abduction is a combined risk factor for posterior hip dislocation in patients undergoing THA for femoral neck fractures: a retrospective analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 103 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The role of acetabular and femoral component positions with respect to the risk of post-operative instability and dislocation remains debated. In this study, we aimed to identify potential risk factors for early dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures (FNF) using radiological measurements.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data for patients who underwent cementless primary THA for FNF using a posterolateral approach between January 2018 and December 2021. Follow-up duration, age, sex, affected side, and mean time from THA to dislocation were recorded. Leg-length inequality, abductor lever arm, vertical and horizontal femoral offsets, vertical and horizontal hip centers of rotation, abduction, anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral prosthesis, and combined anteversion were measured.

Results

The study sample included 17 men and 34 women, with 21 and 30 patients undergoing left- and right-hip operations, respectively. The mean patient age was 70.18 ± 7.64 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 27.73 ± 13.52 months. The mean time between THA and dislocation was 1.58 ± 0.79 months. Seven patients (13.73%) sustained posterior dislocation of the hip. The abduction angle (36.05 ± 6.82° vs. 45.68 ± 8.78°) (p = 0.008) and anteversion of the femoral prosthesis (8.26 ± 4.47° vs. 19.47 ± 9.01°) (p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the dislocation group than in the control group. There were no significant differences in other parameters.

Conclusions

Insufficient stem antetorsion combined with lower abduction angle of the acetabular component were associated with a high risk of dislocation, especially in patients with deep flexion or internal rotation of the flexed hip joint and knees, or in patients with a stiff spine or anterior pelvic tilt, impingement may then occur in the neck of the prosthesis and cup component, ultimately resulting in posterior dislocation. These findings could remind surgeons to avoid simultaneous occurrence of both in THA surgery. These results provide new insight into risk factors for hip dislocation in patients undergoing primary THA for FNF and may aid in reducing the risk of instability and dislocation.

Level of evidence

Prospective comparative study Level II.

Peer Review reports

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most frequently performed orthopedic procedures and was declared the most successful in the twentieth century [1]. Dislocation is a leading early complication of THA, with dislocation rates after primary THA currently ranging from 1.5 to 2%. The risk of dislocation after primary THA for osteoarthritis has been reported as 0.3–10% [2], with the rate of dislocation after revision THA for instability rising up to 15–20% [3]. In the USA, instability/dislocation is the most common indication for revision THA, accounting for 22.5% of revisions [1]. After the first dislocation, 60% of patients sustain recurrent instability, and 50% require revision surgery [4]. A dislocated THA results in tripling of hospital costs compared with an uncomplicated THA [5]. Both patient- and surgery-related factors such as age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, alcohol intake [6], surgical approaches [7], femoral neck fractures (FNFs) [8],femoral neck length, femoral head size [9], acetabular cup positioning [10], hip offset, and leg length restoration [11, 12] have been shown to increase the risk of dislocation after THA.

The role of acetabular component orientation in dislocation formation has been extensively investigated. A recent systematic review of cup positioning in primary THA identified that most studies did not report a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of dislocation for cups placed within the Lewinnek safe zone [13], and the role of the acetabular and femoral component positions with respect to the risk of post-operative dislocation is still debated.

Prior studies have indicated that THA performed in elderly patients for the treatment of acute FNF is associated with a higher rate of dislocation [8]; however, the risk of dislocation after primary THA for FNF has not been fully elucidated. Thus, we aimed to identify the potential risk factors for early hip dislocation following primary THA for FNF using a standard posterolateral approach.

Materials and methods

Patients

We enrolled 55 consecutive patients with displaced intracapsular FNF who underwent primary THA at our institution between January 2018 and December 2021. Patient selection was guided by a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, with the inclusion criterion being patients requiring non-cemented primary THA for FNF. Patients were excluded if they had undergone revision THA for an indication other than primary THA, or if they received a cemented femoral stem during their index arthroplasty. Patients with substantial neurological or musculoskeletal disorders that would adversely affect gait or early weight-bearing after surgery and those with missing radiological or clinical data were also excluded. Two patients with postoperative dislocation were excluded because their primary THA was performed at another hospital, and one patient was excluded for revision THA. This study was approved by by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Zhoupu Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Zhoupu Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences.

Surgical procedure

All surgeries were performed using the standard posterolateral approach by a senior surgeon with more than 30 years of experience. To improve exposure, the proximal iliopsoas muscle was partially released from the lesser trochanter. All patients received uncemented acetabular and femoral components, most of the socket was fixed with two auxiliary screws to augment cup anchoring, and short external rotators were repaired with absorbable sutures using a transosseous technique. Preoperative templating was not routinely performed in any of the patients. If the patient’s physical condition permits, the patient should be allowed to walk with a walking aid for three days after surgery.

Recorded demographics and radiological parameters

Patient demographic data, including age, sex, stem design, mean time from THA to dislocation (months), and follow-up time (months), were recorded. For all postoperative measurements, we used the earliest postoperative images available prior to dislocation. Postoperative measurements included the vertical and horizontal femoral offsets, abductor lever arm, and horizontal and vertical hip centers of rotation, according to a previous study (Fig. 1) [14]. Leg length inequality was measured as described in a previous study (Fig. 1) [15]. If the leg length in the operated hip was longer than that in the non-operated hip, ‘‘+’’ was recorded and vice versa. The cup abduction angles were measured on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the pelvis (Fig. 2A) [16]. The anteversion angles of the cup were measured using axial computed tomography (CT) scans (Fig. 2B) [17], whereas the anteversion angles of the femoral component were measured using axial CT scans (Fig. 2-C) [18] with a picture archiving and communication system (PACS; GE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA). During CT scanning, the pelvis and knee joint were maintained in a neutral position in order to keep the femoral condyle line parallel to the CT-table. All the patients were managed using the same comprehensive perioperative pain management and rapid rehabilitation protocol.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic diagram showing the measurement of biomechanical parameters determined by postoperative radiographs after total hip arthroplasty. 1, horizontal hip center of rotation; 2, vertical hip center of rotation; 3, vertical femoral offset; 4, horizontal femoral offset; 5, abductor lever arm; 6, limb length. (A), vertical teardrop line; (B), horizontal tear drop line; (C), midline lesser trochanter; D, femoral shaft axis; E, tangential line to the greater trochanter; F, bi-ischial line; G, lower line of lesser trochanter

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Schematic diagram showing the measurement of the component parameters. (A), the abduction angle of the cup was defined as the angle formed by the parallel line of the connecting the two teardrops and the line connecting the upper and lower ends of the open plane of the cup on an anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis. (B), the anteversion angles of the cup defined as the angle between a line connecting the lateral anterior and posterior margins of the acetabular component and the sagittal plane defined as the plane perpendicular to a line connecting two identical points on either side of the pelvis on an axial plane of 2-dimensional computed tomography. (C), the anteversion angles of the femoral component were defined as the angle between a line of the head-neck axis and the coronal plane defined as the plane perpendicular to a line connecting two identical points on either side of the pelvis on an axial plane of 2-dimensional computed tomography

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS software (version 23.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. An independent-sample t tests were used to compare two groups. Categorical variables are shown as numbers and were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test when the expected count was less than five. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

One patient in the dislocation group had − 5.17° anteversion of the acetabulum, 36.25° abduction, and 30.65° combined anteversion. As the cause of posterior dislocation was retrograde acetabular prosthesis, its diagnosis was definitive, and the patient was excluded from the study. Seven patients (13.73%) sustained posterior dislocation of the hip (seven patients/seven hips), including five single dislocations, one double dislocation, and one patient with more than two dislocations.

The study sample included 17 men and 34 women, with 21 and 30 patients undergoing left- and right-hip operations, respectively. The mean patient age was 70.18 ± 7.64 years (range: 49–82 years), and the mean follow-up duration was 27.73 ± 13.52 months (range: 7.47–47.21 months). The mean time between THA and dislocation was 1.58 ± 0.79 months (range: 0.62–2.70 months).

There were no significant differences in age, sex, affected side, follow-up duration, abductor lever arm, vertical/horizontal femoral offsets, vertical/horizontal hip centers of rotation, leg-length inequality, anteversion of the acetabulum, or combined anteversion between the dislocation and control groups (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Demographic data of the participants
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of patients with hip dislocation after total hip arthroplasty and controls
Full size table

The incidence of dislocation was significantly associated with anteversion of the femoral prosthesis. More specifically, the dislocation group exhibited significantly lower anteversion of the femoral prosthesis (8.26 ± 4.47°; range: 2.91–14.78°) when compared with the control group (19.47 ± 9.01°; range: 6.23–40.61°) (p = 0.002). Meanwhile, the abduction angle of the cup was significantly lower in the dislocation group (36.05 ± 6.82°; range: 28.76–46.39°) than in the control group (45.68 ± 8.78°; range: 23.33–62.49°) (p = 0.008) (Table 2).

Discussion

Dislocation of the THA is defined as a loss of contact between the femoral head and the acetabular component, which requires intervention to relocate the joint. Many factors contribute to stability and dislocation in patients with THA, including surgical factors such as soft tissue tension, component positioning, and femoral head size [19].

The surgical approach has been recognized as a potential factor influencing THA stability and abductor function [20]. Exposure of the hip and proximal femur requires the division of the posterior hip capsule and external rotators. The main disadvantage is a higher posterior dislocation rate [21, 22]. Despite the improved clinical results observed with posterior soft tissue repair, skepticism remains regarding the long-term integrity of the results [23]. Deficiencies in native tendon-to-bone attachment have been reported in 43% of piriformis repairs and 57% of conjoined tendon repairs [24]. After tendon-to-bone repair, deficient tendon–bone interfaces are initially filled with fibrovascular tissue, following which tissue remodeling and scar formation between the tendon and bone occur [25]. After 3 months, muscle atrophy may lead to a loss of function in those undergoing repair of the short external rotator tendons [24]. However, enhanced posterior capsule and anatomic short external rotator repair have been associated with improved postoperative stability at the 4-year follow-up when the short external rotator and posterior capsule are repaired in separate layers using a transosseous technique and number 2 Ethibond sutures. Notably, patients were mobilized without weight-bearing restrictions on the first postoperative day and were instructed to avoid hip flexion greater than 90° and any internal rotation for 6 weeks after surgery [26]. Another study reported that dislocation rates for the posterior approach can be significantly reduced to as low as 0.7% when anatomical repair of the posterior capsule and external rotators is combined with increased anteversion of the cup component [27]. Thus, we suspect that lack of repair for the posterior capsule, rough short external rotator repair, and limited post-operative rehabilitation may have impaired structural and functional healing of the posterior hip envelope.

Impingement is considered the final common pathway for instability and dislocation [28]. Component orientation and implant choice both directly affect the safe range of motion in THA, with impingement potentially occurring as a result of component malpositioning; suboptimal head diameter, head-neck ratio, or geometry; or socket depth. Impingement has been defined as a mechanical abutment between the metal femoral neck and cup liner, or as bone-to-bone contact, such as that between the greater trochanter and pelvis [29]. Osseous impingement and soft tissue tension can only decrease this range of motion. Therefore, optimum positioning of the components is necessary to avoid a decrease in the stable range of motion owing to prosthetic impingement.

Although component positioning has been shown to play an important role in hip stability and risk of postoperative dislocation, there is currently no consensus regarding the safe zone for acetabular component positioning. These differences among studies may be attributable to differences in the surgical approach, methods of measuring component positioning, and limitations in statistical power [13, 30,31,32]. Computer modeling studies have indicated that the abduction angle for optimal cup position ranges from 45–55°. Angles < 55° require an anteversion of 10–20° for both the stem and cup to minimize the risks of impingement and dislocation [33]. Studies on the 3-D orientation of the acetabular cup have shown that the majority of dislocations have an acetabular cup position that resides within the “safe zone” [34]. Recent studies have questioned the validity of this so-called “safe zone” in explaining dislocations and the variety of definitions used [35]. These insights also require reevaluation of the traditionally advised orientation of the femoral component. When regarding the “safe zone” for combined anteversion of 25°–50°, a widespread variation in results can be observed in the literatures. The recommendations and “safe zones” used to date fail to predict or explain the majority of dislocations [36]. In this study, the control group had a combined anteversion angle > 44°, while the posterior dislocated THA was within the “safe zone”. It cannot be concluded that THA with low or high combined anteversion is prone to dislocation.

In contrast to that of the femoral component, the influence of acetabular component orientation on the risk of dislocation has been extensively investigated. Traditionally, a “safe zone” between 10° and 15° anteversion of the neck of the femoral stem in the transverse plane has been used as a guideline for placement of the femoral component [37]. Other studies reported substantially higher anteversion values. One study described wide variations in femoral anteversion in the standing position. Before surgery, more than 80% of patients had values outside of the “safe zone”—a rate that increased to 85% after THA [38]. In another study, similar variations in native femoral anteversion were observed (–15º to 30°) [39]. Whether femoral component anteversion affects hip joint stability remains controversial. One study claimed that there is no evidence on the optimal femoral component anteversion or for the “safe zone” of 10° to 15° [36], although some studies have demonstrated that low femoral anteversion is associated with a higher risk of posterior dislocation and that patients with high femoral anteversion were at risk for anterior dislocation [40, 41].

According to our results, the horizontal and vertical hip centers of rotation of the acetabular component remained unchanged after the procedure (p = 0.148 and 0.573, respectively) without inward or upward shifts of the socket, which would not decrease the offset of the hip or substantially increase the risk of bone-on-bone impingement [42]. In our cohort, the dislocation rate was 13.73%. However, a significantly decreased abduction angle and insufficient stem antetorsion was observed in patients with dislocation vs. controls. Our results suggest that the influence of femoral component anteversion on hip stability has been underestimated. We hypothesize that patients with certain pelvic dynamics are at a higher risk of THA instability. Other authors have suggested that patients may develop instability despite optimal component orientation because they have abnormal spinopelvic dynamics characterized by restricted pelvic tilt from the standing to sitting position [43], or in patients with a stiff spine or anterior pelvic tilt [44, 45]. In our cohort, dislocation usually occurred when patients tried to pick up an object from the ground with deep flexion or internal rotation of the flexed hip joint and knees. Likewise, noncompliance is more prevalent in these patient populations, and such actions are not strictly avoided [46]. During these movements, a lower abduction angle of the cup combined with an insufficient stem antetorsion, both of which may have shifted the neck of the prosthesis posterosuperiorly, increasing the workload on the short external rotator. In such cases, inadequate tissue tension and joint hyperlaxity cannot stabilize the femoral head in the acetabulum. This may result in increased contact between the neck of the prosthesis and the superior margin of the cup component, leading to primary impingement and posterior dislocation of the femoral head.

This study had some limitations, including its small sample size and retrospective design. The monocentric nature of the data and lack of randomization may have also resulted in selection bias. Dislocation after THA is a multifactorial problem, and this study addressed only parts of this issue. Some parameters were measured on plain AP radiographs and 2-dimensional computed tomography, the accuracy of which is inevitably affected by radiological positioning and interobserver variability. Further, we did not evaluate the integrity of the posterior soft tissues using MRI or ultrasound, and the variable-magnifying effect of the soft tissue may have resulted in overestimation of the measurements. However, despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides new insight into the risk factors for hip dislocation in patients undergoing primary cementless THA for FNF.

Conclusion

Hip dislocation in this population may be influenced by a combination of factors, including insufficient stem antetorsion and a lower abduction angle of the acetabular component, especially in patients with deep flexion or internal rotation of the flexed hip joint and knees. This may in turn lead to impingement between the neck of the prosthesis and cup component, resulting in primary impingement and posterior dislocation. Based on our results, a lower abduction angle of the cup combined with insufficient stem antetorsion was a higher risk factors for hip instability and dislocation can be safely deduced. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such a combined risk factors were found for THA, which could remind surgeons to avoid simultaneous occurrence of both in THA surgery. The current study offers new insight into the risk factors for hip dislocation in primary THA for FNF and may aid in reducing the risk of instability and dislocation during THA.

Data availability

All data are available upon request from the corresponding author of the present paper.

References

  1. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Parvizi J, Picinic E, Sharkey PF. Revision total hip arthroplasty for instability: surgical techniques and principles. Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:183–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Swarup I, Lee YY, Chiu YF, Sutherland R, Shields M, Figgie MP. Implant Survival and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in Young patients. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(9):2893–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kotwal RS, Ganapathi M, John A, Maheson M, Jones SA. Outcome of treatment for dislocation after primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(3):321–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abdel MP, Cross MB, Yasen AT, Haddad FS. The functional and financial impact of isolated and recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97–B(8):1046–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meek RM, Allan DB, McPhillips G, Kerr L, Howie CR. Epidemiology of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:9–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee BP, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Sim FH. Total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of an acute fracture of the femoral neck: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(1):70–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(11):2456–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lazennec JY, Brusson A, Dominique F, Rousseau MA, Pour AE. Offset and anteversion reconstruction after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty: an evaluation with the low-dose EOS system comparing two- and three-dimensional imaging. Int Orthop. 2015;39(7):1259–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dastane M, Dorr LD, Tarwala R, Wan Z. Hip offset in total hip arthroplasty: quantitative measurement with navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):429–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Seagrave KG, Troelsen A, Malchau H, Husted H, Gromov KJAO. Acetabular cup position and risk of dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. 2016;1–8.

  14. Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Weber P, Mazoochian F, Fottner A, Jansson V. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2012;36(7):1341–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhou X, Wang Q, Zhang X, Chen Y, Peng X, Mao Y, et al. Severe pelvic obliquity affects femoral offset in patients with total hip arthroplasty but not Leg-length inequality. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0144863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou X, Wang Q, Zhang X, Chen Y, Shen H, Jiang Y. Effect of pelvic obliquity on the orientation of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(2):299–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song SK, Choi WK, Jung SH, Kim HC, Kim TH, Cho MR. Changes of acetabular anteversion according to pelvic tilt on sagittal plane under various acetabular inclinations. J Orthop Res. 2021;39(4):806–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cai Z, Piao C, Zhang T, Li L, Xiang L. Accuracy of CT for measuring femoral neck anteversion in children with developmental dislocation of the hip verified using 3D printing technology. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(3):282–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barber TC, Roger DJ, Goodman SB, Schurman DJ. Early outcome of total hip arthroplasty using the direct lateral vs the posterior surgical approach. Orthopedics. 1996;19(10):873–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berry DJ. Unstable total hip arthroplasty: detailed overview. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:265–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chiu FY, Chen CM, Chung TY, Lo WH, Chen TH. The effect of posterior capsulorrhaphy in primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(2):194–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stahelin T, Drittenbass L, Hersche O, Miehlke W, Munzinger U. Failure of capsular enhanced short external rotator repair after total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pellicci PM, Potter HG, Foo LF, Boettner F. MRI shows biologic restoration of posterior soft tissue repairs after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):940–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Farshad M, Gerber C, Snedeker JG, Frauenfelder T, Meyer DC. Structure of retracted tendons after staged repair following continuous traction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McLawhorn AS, Potter HG, Cross MB, Boettner F, Lim W, Lee YY, et al. Posterior soft tissue repair after primary THA is durable at mid-term followup: a prospective MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3183–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldstein WM, Gleason TF, Kopplin M, Branson JJ. Prevalence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty through a posterolateral approach with partial capsulotomy and capsulorrhaphy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83–A(2Pt 1):2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Padgett DE, Lipman J, Robie B, Nestor BJ. Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KAJCO, et al. Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Cause for Osteoarthritis of the hip. 2003;417(417):112.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Timperley AJ, Biau D, Chew D, Whitehouse SL. Dislocation after total hip replacement - there is no such thing as a safe zone for socket placement with the posterior approach. Hip Int. 2016;26(2):121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jorgensen CC, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Solgaard S, Kehlet H. Lundbeck Foundation Centre for fast-track H, knee replacement collaborative G. hip dislocations after 2,734 elective unilateral fast-track total hip arthroplasties: incidence, circumstances and predisposing factors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(11):1615–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Weeks KD, Nam D, Mayman DJ. Targeting a New Safe Zone: a step in the development of patient-specific component positioning for total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44(6):270–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barrack RL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):386–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Snijders TE, Willemsen K, van Gaalen SM, Castelein RM, Weinans H, de Gast A. Lack of consensus on optimal acetabular cup orientation because of variation in assessment methods in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2019;29(1):41–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van Erp JHJ, Snijders TE, Weinans H, Castelein RM, Schlösser TPC, de Gast A. The role of the femoral component orientation on dislocations in THA: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022;142(6):1253–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sculco TPJTJB, Surgery J. Articles and Commentary regarding the role of Local Analgesia in total hip and knee arthroplasty. 2012;94(16):1511–3.

  38. Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D’Antonio JA. The Frank Stinchfield Award: morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maillot C, Harman C, Villet L, Cobb J, Rivière C. Modern cup alignment techniques in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Research: OTSR. 2019;105(5):907–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Komeno M, Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Uchida A. Computed tomographic evaluation of component position on dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2006;29(12):1104–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fujishiro T, Hiranaka T, Hashimoto S, Hayashi S, Kurosaka M, Kanno T, et al. The effect of acetabular and femoral component version on dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2016;40(4):697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1832–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Heckmann N, McKnight B, Stefl M, Trasolini NA, Ike H, Dorr LD. Late dislocation following total hip arthroplasty: Spinopelvic Imbalance as a causative factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(21):1845–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Widmer KH. The Impingement-free, Prosthesis-specific, and anatomy-adjusted combined Target Zone for Component Positioning in THA depends on design and implantation parameters of both components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(8):1904–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22(4):815–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dargel J, Oppermann J, Brüggemann GP, Eysel P. Dislocation following total hip replacement. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 2014;111(51–52):884–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by the Project of Shanghai Municipal Pudong New Area Health Commission and Technology Project (PW2020B-11), and the Featured Clinical Discipline Project of Shanghai Pudong (PWYts2021-03).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Zhuokai Li and Yang Yang contributed equally to the co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences Affiliated Zhoupu Hospital, Shanghai, China

    Zhuokai Li, Shengyang Guo, Ju Liu & Xiaoxiao Zhou

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical College, Zhejiang, China

    Yang Yang

  3. Jinji Lake Community Health Service Center of Suzhou Industrial Park, Suzhou, China

    Houlin Ji

Authors
  1. Zhuokai Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shengyang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ju Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoxiao Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Houlin Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YY, HLJ, ZKL, and XXZ designed the study and wrote the manuscript. HLJ, SYG and JL performed the parameter measurements. HLJ analyzed the data. All the authors participated in the review and discussion of this manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaoxiao Zhou or Houlin Ji.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Shanghai university of medicine & health Sciences Affiliated Zhoupu hospital (ZPYYLL-2022-01). Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Zhoupu Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Z., Yang, Y., Guo, S. et al. Insufficient stem antetorsion and lower cup abduction is a combined risk factor for posterior hip dislocation in patients undergoing THA for femoral neck fractures: a retrospective analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 103 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07199-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07199-2

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us