Can we trust combined anteversion and Lewinnek safe zone to avoid hip prosthesis dislocation?

Cemented or uncemented fixation: Which allows a more acceptable prosthetic femoral version in total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional computed-tomography (3D-CT) planning for primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) typically uses the external femoral surface; as a result, it is difficult to predict the prosthetic femoral version (PFV) for uncemented femoral stems that press-fit to the internal surface of the bone. Cemented fixation allows the surgeon to adjust the version independent of the internal femoral anatomy. We aimed to better understand the effect of the fixation type on PFV.

METHODS

This was a case series study including a total of 95 consecutive patients (106 hips), who underwent uncemented (n = 81 hips) and cemented (n = 25 hips) primary THA using the posterior approach. The surgeon aimed for a PFV of 20°. Our primary objective was to compare PFV in both groups; our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean (± SD) PFV was 13° (± 9°) and 23° (± 8°) for the uncemented and cemented THA groups (P < 0.001), respectively. In the uncemented THA group, 36% of the patients had a PFV of < 10°. In the cemented THA group, this clinically important threshold dropped to 8%. Similarly, the Bland-Altman (BA) plots showed wider 95% limits of agreement for the uncemented group. Satisfactory clinical outcomes were recorded.

CONCLUSION

We found that the PFV was more clinically acceptable, for the posterior surgical approach, in the cemented group when compared to the uncemented group. Both THA groups reported high variability indicating the need to develop surgical tools to guide the PFV closer to the surgical target.

Acetabular Component and Liner Selection for the Prevention of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

»

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis; however, dislocation remains the most common cause of revision arthroplasty.

»

Technological advancements in acetabular component design and liner options, in conjunction with a more comprehensive understanding of the spinopelvic factors that influence dislocation, will likely reduce the risk of dislocation and revision over time.

»

The contemporary liner and shell options for primary THA, in order of increasing constraint and stability, include (1) neutral, (2) lateralized, (3) face-changing (oblique), (4) lipped (high-wall) with or without lateralization, (5) modular and anatomic dual-mobility, and (6) constrained options.

»

Different liner designs can alter functional anteversion, inclination, and jump distance, and can be used to minimize a single predictable dislocation vector (lipped [high-wall] liners) or multiple vectors of instability risk when the dislocation direction is unpredictable (dual-mobility liners).

»

Liner selection should be based on the patient-specific risk of dislocation, including static anatomic (e.g., large anterior inferior iliac spine or greater trochanter morphology), dynamic anatomic (e.g., limited sitting-standing change in the sacral slope), and demographic or medical (e.g., neurocognitive disorders and obesity) risk factors.