Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Good vs Poor Results After Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis Method Using Implant and Anatomic Parameters With the
Samy Bendaya1, Carolyn Anglin2, Jean-Yves Lazennec3
1Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France; Hôpital Rothschild AP-HP, Paris, France.
Background:
Existing imaging techniques and single-parameter analyses, in nonfunctional positions, fail to detect the differences between patients with good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty.
Methods:
The present study developed an analysis method using the EOS full-body, low-dose, biplanar, weightbearing imaging system to compare good vs poor patients after total hip arthroplasty and to report on our preliminary experiences (17 good, 18 poor).
Results:
All revision cases were found to have at least 4 high or low implant or anatomic parameters relative to the good group. These included acetabular cup orientation, sagittal pelvic tilt, sacral slope, femoral offset, and neck-shaft angle. Acetabular cup orientation differed significantly between groups.
Conclusion:
With the EOS system, a large cohort can be studied relatively quickly and at low dose, which could lead to patient-specific guidelines.
