2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
42
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
42
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hips with a fulcrum need less impact and may dislocate without a fracture, even more so when the posterior border is less prominent. As shown in the literature for prosthetic posterior hip dislocations, low femoral antetorsion or even retrotorsion [8] and an increased centrum-collum-diaphyseal (CCD) angle [28] have the same effect in decreasing the clearance for internal rotation in flexion. This is consistent with the literature for dislocation of native hips with femoral retroversion [27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Hips with a fulcrum need less impact and may dislocate without a fracture, even more so when the posterior border is less prominent. As shown in the literature for prosthetic posterior hip dislocations, low femoral antetorsion or even retrotorsion [8] and an increased centrum-collum-diaphyseal (CCD) angle [28] have the same effect in decreasing the clearance for internal rotation in flexion. This is consistent with the literature for dislocation of native hips with femoral retroversion [27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Including variation of femoral anatomy in the model would allow for greater variation in femoral anteversion. ROM results were also limited to primary motions, which enabled easier comparison to earlier studies [16,31,32]. It would be interesting and relevant to expand the contact detection algorithm to consider composite motions typical of common activities at risk for dislocation [23].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mathematical modeling has been used previously [31,32] to compute the optimal combination of implant alignment parameters for maximum hip ROM, but patient-specific factors, such as potential bony impingement, were not considered. One recent study did consider the effect of bony impingement on hip ROM for varying orientations of cup abduction, cup anteversion, and femoral anteversion [16], and bony impingement reportedly preceded component impingement in 44% of the cases considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst abduction is generally a safe position unless in extreme range (as in performing a split) and therefore not of concern in the vast majority of hip replacement patients the value of increasing inferior jump distance may be in mixed abduction and flexion activities (riding a horse or a jetski) as demonstrated above. Further, the model does not take into account the soft tissue envelope that will, in-vivo, have a significant influence on range (allowance and restriction) and potential impingement [32].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%