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.

Guiding prosthetic femoral version using 3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation (PSI): a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Implantation of the femoral component with suboptimal version is associated with instability of the reconstructed hip joint. High variability of Prosthetic Femoral Version (PFV) has been reported in primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Three-dimensional (3D) Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been recently developed and may assist in delivering a PFV within the intended range. We performed a pilot study to better understand whether the intra-operative use of a novel PSI guide, designed to deliver a PFV of 20°, results in the target range of PFV in primary cemented THA.

METHODS

We analysed post-operative Computed-Tomography (CT) data of two groups of patients who underwent primary cemented THA through posterior approach; 1. A group of 11 patients (11 hips) for which the surgeon used an intra-operative 3D-printed stem positioning guide (experimental) 2. A group of 24 patients (25 hips) for which the surgeon did not use the guide (control). The surgeon aimed for a PFV of 20°, and therefore the guide was designed to indicate the angle at which the stem was positioned intra-operatively. PFV angles were measured using the post-operative 3D-CT models of the proximal femurs and prosthetic components in both groups. Our primary objective was to compare the PFV in both groups. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Mean (± SD) values for the PFV was 21.3° (± 4.6°) and 24.6° (± 8.2°) for the experimental and control groups respectively. In the control group, 20% of the patients reported a PFV outside the intended range of 10° to 30° anteversion. In the experimental group, this percentage dropped to 0%. Satisfactory clinical outcome was recorded in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The intra-operative use of a PSI PFV guide helped the surgeon avoid suboptimal PFV in primary cemented THA. Further studies are needed to evaluate if the PSI guide directly contributes to a better clinical outcome.