Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between the acetabular cup position and the risk of dislocation, wear and range of motion after total hip arthroplasty. The present study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the surgeon's estimated position of the cup after freehand placement in total hip replacement. Peroperative estimated abduction and anteversion of 200 acetabular components (placed by three orthopaedic surgeons and nine residents) were compared with measured outcomes (according to Pradhan) on postoperative radiographs. Cups were placed in 49.7° (SD 6.7) of abduction and 16.0° (SD 8.1) of anteversion. Estimation of placement was 46.3° (SD 4.3) of abduction and 14.6° (SD 5.9) of anteversion. Of more interest is the fact that for the orthopaedic surgeons the mean inaccuracy of estimation was 4.1° (SD 3.9) for abduction and 5.2° (SD 4.5) for anteversion and for their residents this was respectively, 6.3° (SD 4.6) and 5.7° (SD 5.0). SigniWcant diVerences were found between orthopaedic surgeons and residents for inaccuracy of estimation for abduction, not for anteversion. Body mass index, sex, (un)cemented Wxation and surgical approach (anterolateral or posterolateral) were not signiWcant factors. Based upon the inaccuracy of estimation, the group's chance on future cup placement within Lewinnek's safe zone (5-25° anteversion and 30-50° abduction) is 82.7 and 85.2% for anteversion and abduction separately. When both parameters are combined, the chance of accurate placement is only 70.5%. The chance of placement of the acetabular component within 5° of an intended position, for both abduction and anteversion is 21.5% this percentage decreases to just 2.9% when the tolerated error is 1°. There is a tendency to underestimate both abduction and anteversion. Orthopaedic surgeons are superior to their residents in estimating abduction of the acetabular component. The results of this study indicate that freehand placement of the acetabular component is not a reliable method.

No abstract

PurposeWe investigated the hypothesis that many total hip arthroplasty revisions that are classified as aseptic are in fact low-grade infections missed with routine diagnostics.MethodsIn 7 Dutch hospitals, 176 consecutive patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening of their total hip arthroplasty were enrolled. During surgery, between 14 and 20 tissue samples were obtained for culture, pathology, and broad-range 16S rRNA PCR with reverse line blot hybridization. Patients were classified as either not being infected, suspected of having infection, or infected according to strict, predefined criteria. Each patient had a follow-up visit after 1 year.Results7 patients were classified as infected, 4 of whom were not identified by routine culture. 15 additional patients were suspected of having infection. 20 of these 22 patients received a cemented prosthesis, fixated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. All 22 patients received prophylactic systemic antibiotics. 7 of them reported complaints one year after surgery, but only one showed signs of early loosening. However, additional surgery was not performed in any of the patients.InterpretationAlthough the proportions were not as high as previously reported in the literature, between 4% and 13% of patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening were infected. However, as thorough debridement was performed during surgery and prophylactic antibiotics were used, the diagnosis of infection did not have any obvious clinical consequences, as most patients performed well at the 1-year follow-up. Whether this observation has implications for long-term implant survival remains to be seen.

No abstract