The removal of acetabular bone in hip resurfacing and cementless total hip replacement

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.

Comparison of Acetabular Bone Resection, Offset, Leg Length and Post Operative Function Between Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty

Controversy exists regarding the amount of acetabular bone resection, biomechanics and function of patients receiving either total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). A cohort of patients undergoing 36 mm ceramic-on-ceramic THA (89) or metal-on-metal HRA (86) were compared. No difference was observed when the ratio of native femoral head size was compared to the implanted acetabular component size (1.15 ± 0.1 HRA c.f. 1.13 ± 0.1 THA). No difference was observed in acetabular offset, vertical centre of rotation or function (OHS mean 47 in both groups) but leg length discrepancy (1.8 mm c.f. 5.5 mm) and femoral offset did differ (0.6 mm c.f. 4.1 mm). This demonstrates that 36 mm ceramic-on-ceramic THA is not associated with more bone resection than HRA and achieves equivalent function whilst avoiding the problems of metal-on-metal bearings.

An in vivo comparison of the orientation of the transverse acetabular ligament and the acetabulum

Aligning the acetabular component with the Transverse Acetabular Ligament (TAL) to ensure optimal anteversion has been reported to reduce dislocation rates. However, to our knowledge in vivo measurement of the TAL angle has not yet been reported in a large cohort of normal hips. CT scans of 218 normal hips were analyzed. The TAL and four acetabular rim anteversion angles were measured (superiorly to inferiorly) relative to the anterior pelvic plane. The mean TAL anteversion angle was 20.5° ± 7.0°, and the acetabular rim angles from superior to inferior were 11.0° ± 12.9°, 19.9° ± 8.8°, 20.9° ± 6.2° and 25.1° ± 6.2° respectively. Both the TAL and the acetabular rim were significantly more anteverted in females than in males. The TAL anteversion angle was comparable to the predominant orientation (central rim section) of the native acetabulum while the superior acetabulum was comparatively retroverted and the inferior was relatively more anteverted.