Use of a Digital Protractor and a Spirit Level to Determine the Intraoperative Anteversion of Femoral Component during Cemented Hip Hemiarthroplasty: a Prospective Clinical Trial



Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lampang Hospital and Medical Educational Center, Mueang District, Lampang, Thailand


Background: Femoral stem anteversion during hip arthroplasty is generally estimated by eye intraoperatively and has
proven to be different from targeted values. This study aims to determine the accuracy of a novel technique using a
digital protractor and a spirit level to improve surgeons’ estimation of stem anteversion.
Methods: A prospective non-randomized study was conducted among 93 patients with femoral neck fracture who
underwent cemented hemiarthroplasty via posterolateral approach. In the control group (N=62), five experienced
surgeons assessed stem anteversion related to the posterior femoral condylar plane using visual estimation with a
target angle of 15°-25°. In the study group (N=31), another two surgeons assessed stem anteversion with the same
target angle by placing a digital protractor on the femoral stem inserter handle while the assistant held the leg in the truly
vertical position, verified by a spirit level that was attached to the shin with cable ties. Stem anteversion was measured
blind, postoperatively, on 2D-CT and compared with the intraoperative results.
Results: The mean postoperative anteversion was 22.4° (-4.2° to 51.3°, SD 11.1°) in the control group and 23.0° (16.0°
to 29.9°, SD 3.6°) in the study group (P=0.810). The study group had more stems positioned in 15°-25° anteversion
(71.0% vs 32.3%, P=0.001) and the mean absolute value of surgeon error was -0.2° (-5.4° to 7.0°, SD 3.0°). Twentyeight
stems of the study group (90.3%) had an error within 5°. Surgeon overestimation >5° was found in 1 hip (3.2%)
and underestimation >5° was found in 2 hips (6.4%).
Conclusion: Using a digital protractor and a spirit level was reliable with high accuracy and precision to improve the
intraoperative estimation of cemented stem anteversion.
Level of evidence: II


Main Subjects

1. Kiernan S, Hermann KL, Wagner P, Ryd L, Flivik G.
The importance of adequate stem anteversion for
rotational stability in cemented total hip replacement:
a radiostereometric study with ten-year follow-up.
Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(1):23-30.
2. Gill HS, Alfaro-Adrián J, Alfaro-Adrián C, McLardy-Smith
P, Murray DW. The effect of anteversion on femoral
component stability assessed by radiostereometric
analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17(8):997-1005.
3. Olofsson K, Digas G, Kärrholm J. Influence of design
variations on early migration of a cemented stem in
THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 448(1):67-72.
4. Flugsrud GB, Nordsletten L, Espehaug B, Havelin
LI, Meyer HE. The effect of middle-age body weight
and physical activity on the risk of early revision hip
arthroplasty: a cohort study of 1,535 individuals. Acta
Orthop. 2007; 78(1):99-107.
5. van Embden D, van Gijn W, van de Steenhoven
T, Rhemrev S. The surgeon’s eye: a prospective
analysis of the anteversion in the placement of
hemiarthroplasties after a femoral neck fracture. Hip
Int. 2015; 25(2):127-30.
6. Dorr LD, Wan Z, Malik A, Zhu J, Dastane M, Deshmane
P. A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed
tomographic measurement of femoral component
anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(11):2598-604.
7. Wines AP, McNicol D. Computed tomography
measurement of the accuracy of component version
in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;
8. Hirata M, Nakashima Y, Ohishi M, Hamai S, Hara D,
Iwamoto Y. Surgeon error in performing intraoperative
estimation of stem anteversion in cementless total
hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9):1648-53.
9. Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z. Combined
anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(1):119-27.
10. Eingartner C. Current trends in total hip arthroplasty.
Orthop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007; 9(1):8-14.

11. Meermans G, Goetheer-Smits I, Lim RF, Van Doorn WJ,
Kats J. The difference between the radiographic and
the operative angle of inclination of the acetabular
component in total hip arthroplasty: use of a digital
protractor and the circumference of the hip to improve
orientation. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(5):603-10.
12. Sykes AM, Hill JC, Beverland DE, Orr JF. A novel device
to measure acetabular inclination with patients in
lateral decubitus. Hip Int. 2012; 22(6):683-9.
13. Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E. A comparison
of alternative methods of measuring femoral
anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998; 22(4):
14. Hsu A, Blomberg J. Femoral neck fracture cemented
bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Lineage Medical.
Available at: URL:
15. Turley GA, Ahmed SM, Williams MA, Griffin DR.
Validation of the femoral anteversion measurement
method used in imageless navigation. Comput Aided
Surg. 2012; 17(4):187-97.
16. Siston RA, Daub AC, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL.
Evaluation of methods that locate the center of the
ankle for computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 439(1):129-35.
17. Howell SM, Chen J, Hull ML. Variability of the location
of the tibial tubercle affects the rotational alignment
of the tibial component in kinematically aligned
total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol
Arthrosc. 2013; 21(10):2288-95.
18. Mukka S, Lindqvist J, Peyda S, Brodén C, Mahmood
S, Hassany H, et al. Dislocation of bipolar hip
hemiarthroplasty through a postero-lateral approach
for femoral neck fractures: a cohort study. Int Orthop.
2015; 39(7):1277-82.
19. Emami M, Manafi A, Hashemi B, Nemati A, Safari S.
Comparison of intertrochanteric fracture fixation
with dynamic hip screw and bipolar hemiarthroplasty
techniques. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013; 1(1):14-7.