Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty - Exam Summary
High-Yield Exam Summary
Surgical technique guide for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty - FRCS exam preparation
Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team
Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team
Multiple approaches available - posterior (Moore/Southern), direct anterior (DAA), direct lateral (Hardinge), anterolateral (Watson-Jones) | intermediate
Location: Exits greater sciatic notch 25-40mm proximal to tip of greater trochanter, runs between gluteus medius and minimus
Protection: Stay within 5cm distal to GT tip (safe zone), never extend muscle split proximally beyond this landmark, use anterior-based approach to avoid
Location: Runs 20-30mm posterior to hip joint capsule, posterior to short external rotators (piriformis is key landmark - nerve 2cm posterior)
Protection: Tag external rotators for identification, gentle retraction only, limit retraction time, avoid leg lengthening greater than 4cm
Location: Lies 40-60mm anterior/medial to acetabulum, within femoral triangle (NAVEL: nerve, artery, vein, empty space, lymphatics)
Protection: Anterior retractors must stay on bone (ilium/acetabular rim), never slide medially into soft tissue, avoid anteroinferior acetabular screws
Location: Run along pelvic brim anteriorly, 15-25mm anterior to anterior acetabular wall, separated by psoas and iliacus muscles
Protection: No screws in anteroinferior quadrant of acetabulum, screws posterosuperior only, medial wall reaming must be controlled to avoid perforation
Location: Runs deep to quadratus femoris muscle, supplies femoral head via retinacular vessels, critical for femoral head viability
Protection: Preserve quadratus femoris when possible, recognize already disrupted in AVN cases, gentle handling of posterior capsule
End-stage Hip Osteoarthritis
Secondary Osteoarthritis
Inflammatory Arthritis
Acute Fracture
Absolute
Relative
Templating Requirements
Australian Context - AOANJRR Data
Exam Pearl
AOANJRR Pearl: "In Australia, uncemented acetabular components account for 90% of primary THA. For femoral stems, younger patients (less than 65) typically receive uncemented stems, while cemented stems are preferred in elderly patients greater than 75 years with osteoporotic bone. Hybrid fixation (uncemented cup, cemented stem) is the gold standard for fracture indications."
Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination
"A 68-year-old man presents with severe right hip pain limiting his daily activities. Describe your assessment and management plan for primary total hip arthroplasty."
"You are performing a primary THA via posterior approach. Walk me through the key anatomical structures and danger zones you encounter."
"What is the Lewinnek safe zone and why is it important? How do you assess and optimize stability intraoperatively?"
High-Yield Exam Summary
Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217-220. Classic study defining the safe zone for acetabular component positioning (40-45° inclination, 15-20° anteversion) that reduces dislocation rates from 6.1% to 1.5%.
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2023 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA; 2023. Comprehensive registry data showing 90% uncemented cups, 96.5% survival at 5 years, 94% at 10 years for primary THA in Australia.
Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ. Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:34-38. Systematic review demonstrating posterior approach has 2-5% dislocation rate, reduced to <1% with capsular repair, compared to anterior approach baseline <1%.
Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(3):282-288. Multivariate analysis identifying key risk factors: approach, component positioning, soft tissue repair, head size, patient factors (cognitive impairment, prior surgery).
Dorr LD, Malik A, Wan Z, Long WT, Harris M. Precision and bias of imageless computer navigation and surgeon estimates for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:92-99. Study on acetabular component positioning accuracy showing computer navigation improves precision but Lewinnek safe zone remains goal.
Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22(4):815-821. Introduced combined anteversion concept: cup anteversion plus stem anteversion should equal 25-45° for optimal stability and impingement-free ROM.
Barrack RL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):89-99. Comprehensive review of factors affecting stability including component positioning, head size (larger head = greater jump distance), soft tissue repair.
Pellicci PM, Bostrom M, Poss R. Posterior approach to total hip replacement using enhanced posterior soft tissue repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:224-228. Landmark study demonstrating capsular and external rotator repair reduces dislocation from 3-5% to <1% - changed practice globally.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty for end-stage arthritis of the hip. Technology appraisal guidance [TA304]. London: NICE; 2014. UK guidelines on indications, patient selection, and outcomes for primary THA including cost-effectiveness analysis.
Maloney WJ, Keeney JA. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(4 Suppl 1):108-110. Review of leg length discrepancy causes, prevention strategies (templating, intraoperative measurement), and management options (shoe lift, revision).