Factors affecting acetabular bone loss during primary hip arthroplasty--a quantitative analysis using computer simulation

Acetabular cup size trends in total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common procedure for end stage osteoarthritis. The learning curve for THA is complex and challenging. One of the most difficult skills to master is acetabular reaming. We wish to identify if experience in arthroplasty leads to preservation of more bone stock.

AIM

To investigate if increasing surgeon experience will predict an ever decreasing acetabular cup size.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of four attending orthopaedic surgeons was completed. All uncemented elective total hip arthroplasties since appointment were selected for inclusion. The size of acetabular cup used was noted and logistic regression was used to identify if a trend to smaller cups existed.

RESULTS

A total of 1614 subjects were included with a mean age of 64 years. Overall cups were on average 0.18mm smaller per year (95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.11, P < 0.001). Individual surgeon trends showed cup sizes to decrease 0.27 mm/year for surgeon A, 0.02 mm/year for surgeon B, 0.15 mm/year for surgeon C and 0.29 mm/year for surgeon D. Three of the four surgeons had a more pronounced trend to smaller cups for male subjects than their female counterparts.

CONCLUSION

We found increasing surgeon experience to be associated with an ever-decreasing acetabular cup size. Smaller acetabular cup size may act as a surrogate marker of surgical proficiency by virtue of decreased acetabular reaming.

Personalized Hip Joint Replacement with Large Diameter Head: Current Concepts

Hip arthroplasty is a common procedure in elective orthopaedic surgery that has excellent outcomes. Hip replacement surgery aims to create a “forgotten” joint, i.e., a pain-free joint akin to a native articulation. To achieve such goals, hip arthroplasty must be personalised. This is achieved by restoring: the centre of rotation of the native hip; leg length equality; femoral offset; femoral orientation; soft tissue tension; joint stability with an unrestricted hip range of motion; and having appropriate stress transfer to the bone. In addition, the whole pathway should provide an uneventful and swift postoperative recovery and lifetime implant survivorship with unrestricted activities. At our institution, the preferred option is a personalized total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a large diameter head (LDH) using either monobloc or dual-mobility configuration for the acetabular component. LDH THA offers an impingement-free range of motion and a reduced risk of dislocation. The larger head-neck offset allows for a supraphysiologic range of motion (ROM). This can compensate for a patient’s abnormal spinopelvic mobility and surgical imprecision. Additionally, LDH bearing with a small clearance exerts a high suction force, which provides greater hip micro-stability. With appropriate biomechanical reconstruction, LDH THA can restore normal gait parameters. This results in unrestricted activities and higher patient satisfaction scores. We use LDH ceramic on ceramic for our patients with a life expectancy of more than 20 years and use LDH dual mobility bearings for all others.

Does total hip arthroplasty with high hip centre in dysplasia compromise acetabular bone stock?

BACKGROUND

The placement of uncemented acetabular components during total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Crowe II and Crowe III dysplasia can be at the anatomic or high hip centre position.

PURPOSES

Using computerised tomography data, we simulated acetabular cup placement at the anatomic hip centre and the high hip centre positions to assess whether there is a difference between the 2 in terms of bone loss from acetabular reaming and in acetabular coverage by host bone.

METHODS

The study population included a consecutive cohort of 19 patients (22 hips) with Crowe II or III dysplasia. 3-dimensional models of the pelvis were created for each patient and digital templating was used to determine the anatomic and high hip centre positions. The coordinates of the digitally templated cup positions were fed into an image processing software to estimate the amount of bone reamed, the cup coverage by host bone and the elevation from tear drop.

RESULTS

The mean volume of bone reamed was greater in the high hip centre position as compared to the anatomic position (27.3 ± 11. 4 cm³ vs. 19.4 ± 12.2 cm³, p < 0.0001). The coverage of the acetabular cup by host bone was greater in the high hip centre position (87.3 ± 5.9% vs. 68.3 ± 10%). The mean elevation in the high hip centre group was 13 mm with 3 hips having a breach of the medial wall.

CONCLUSIONS

In Crowe II and III dysplasia, placement of acetabular cups at the anatomic hip centre better preserves bone stock as compared to high hip centre placement and should be preferred in young patients requiring THA.

Comparison of Test Setups for the Experimental Evaluation of the Primary Fixation Stability of Acetabular Cups

Sufficient primary fixation stability is the basis for the osseointegration of cementless acetabular cups. Several test methods have been established for determining the tilting moment of acetabular press-fit cups, which is a measure for their primary fixation stability. The central aim of this experimental study was to show the differences between the commonly used lever-out test method (Method 1) and the edge-load test method (Method 2) in which the cup insert is axially loaded (1 kN) during the tilting process with respect to the parameters, tilting moment, and interface stiffness. Therefore, using a biomechanical cup block model, a press-fit cup design with a macro-structured surface was pushed into three cavity types (intact, moderate superior defect, and two-point-pinching cavity) made of 15 pcf and 30 pcf polyurethane foam blocks (n = 3 per cavity and foam density combination), respectively. Subsequently, the acetabular cup was disassembled from the three artificial bone cavities using the lever-out and the edge-load test method. Tilting moments determined with Method 1 ranged from 2.72 ± 0.29 Nm to 49.08 ± 1.50 Nm, and with Method 2, they ranged from 41.40 ± 1.05 Nm to 112.86 ± 5.29 Nm. In Method 2, larger areas of abrasion were observed in the artificial bone cavity compared to Method 1. This indicates increased shear forces at the implant–bone interface in the former method. In conclusion, Method 1 simulates the technique used by orthopedic surgeons to assess the correct fit of the trial cup, while Method 2 simulates the tilting of the cup in the acetabular bone cavity under in situ loading with the hip resultant force.

Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size: a matched-pair controlled study

PURPOSE

To compare the acetabular component size relative to the patient's native femoral head size between conventional THA (CTHA) approach and robotic-arm assisted THA (RTHA) to infer which of these techniques preserved more acetabular bone.

METHODS

Patients were included if they had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and underwent total hip replacement between June 2008 and March 2014. Patients were excluded if they had missing or rotated postoperative anteroposterior radiographs. RTHA patients were matched to a control group of CTHA patients, in terms of preoperative native femoral head size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and approach. Acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size was used as a surrogate for amount of bone resected. We compared the groups according to 2 measures describing acetabular cup diameter (c) in relation to femoral head diameter (f): (i) c-f, the difference between cup diameter and femoral head diameter and (ii) (c-f)/f, the same difference as a fraction of femoral head diameter.

RESULTS

57 matched pairs were included in each group. There were no significant differences between groups for demographic measures, femoral head diameter, or acetabular cup diameter (p>0.05). However, measures (i) and (ii) did differ significantly between the groups, with lower values in the RTHA group (p<0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size as an approximate surrogate measure of acetabular bone resection may suggest greater preservation of bone stock using RTHA compared to CTHA. Further studies are needed to validate the relationship between acetabular cup size and bone loss in THA.

Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motion

BACKGROUND

Range of motion after hip arthroplasty may be limited by soft tissues around the hip, extra-articular contact and femoral stem-neck contact with the acetabular articular surface. Femoral head-neck diameter ratio is recognized as a major factor influencing hip range of motion. In hip resurfacing, range of motion is constrained by "cup component to femoral neck" contact. To avoid cup-to-bone contact or to increase the degree of flexion at which it occurs, anterior translation of the femoral component relative to the central femoral neck axis may improve anterior head-neck offset and hip flexion. We questioned whether low or high anterior femoral head to neck offset, cup inclination, stem anteversion, and component size influenced postoperative range of motion and hip flexion in patients who had undergone hip resurfacing.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 66 patients (68 hips) who underwent hip resurfacing at a mean age at operation of 46.4 years (range, 19-60 years). Mean follow-up was 37.5 months (range, 33-41 months). No patient was lost to follow-up. All patients were evaluated clinically and range of motion was precised. Radiological measurement evaluated the anterior femoral head-neck offset.

FINDINGS

Mean anterior neck-head offset was 7.5mm (range, 5-12 mm). We found significant linear regression correlation between anterior offset and flexion (R=0.66) and between anterior offset and global range of motion (R=0.51). One millimeter of anterior offset increased hip range of motion by 5° in flexion. No significant correlations were found between global range of motion or flexion arc of motion and component size, stem anteversion, cup inclination, gender ratio, preoperative arc of flexion or global range of motion.

INTERPRETATION

Restoring or improving deficient anterior femoral head-neck offset appears important for restoring postoperative range of motion and specifically hip flexion.