Anatomic placement of the acetabulum improves the survival rate in patients with Crowe type-II dysplasia undergoing total hip arthroplasty
Commentary

Anatomic placement of the acetabulum improves the survival rate in patients with Crowe type-II dysplasia undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Ruyin Hu, Bo Li, Xiaobin Tian

Department of Orthopedics, Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital, Guiyang 550002, China

Correspondence to: Xiaobin Tian. Department of Orthopedics, Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital, Guiyang 550002, China. Email: txb6@vip.163.com.

Provenance: This is a Guest Commentary commissioned by Section Editor Pengfei Lei, MD (Clinical research fellow at Department of Orthopedic Surgery Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA; Surgeon of Department of Orthopeadic Surgery, Central South University Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, China).

Comment on: Watts CD, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, et al. Anatomic Hip Center Decreases Aseptic Loosening Rates After Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cement in Patients with Crowe Type-II Dysplasia: A Concise Follow-up Report at a Mean of Thirty-six Years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:910-5.


Submitted Oct 18, 2016. Accepted for publication Nov 08, 2016.

doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.12.60


Total hip replacement in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a difficult, technical procedure for surgeons to perform because of the potential risks for these patients to have severe abnormalities in their bones and soft tissues (1,2). The procedure is more demanding and is associated with a higher rate of complication compared to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of primary degenerative osteoarthrosis of the hip (3). In general, the accepted practice is that placement of the acetabulum in the anatomic location is more advantageous biomechanically and may lead to higher prosthetic survival rates in these patients (4-6). Some of the most experienced hip surgeons agree that the optimum location for the center of rotation of a THA is the anatomic position. Therefore, recent literatures suggest placing the acetabular component in the anatomic hip-center for different types of DDH. Several techniques have been used to reconstruct the acetabulum during THA in DDH patients, including augmentation with bone grafting with cemented or noncemented acetabular component (7-9) or using high hip centre (10,11) when there is no better choice. Yet, there still remain some controversies as to whether a high hip center, particularly without bone graft, is the best option for patients with severe hip dysplasia.

The article by Watts et al. (12) is an important review of the practice of THA treatment of DDH. This article was based on a previous study by Pagnano et al. (13) who reported the 2- to 22-year results of 145 total hip arthroplasties with cement performed from 1969 to 1980 in 117 patients with Crowe type-II dysplasia. Watts’s et al. purpose of the study was to update the long-term effects of a non-anatomic hip center on component loosening and aseptic revision. Their present findings noted that hips with an anatomic hip center had significantly lower rates of acetabular loosening and aseptic revision in Crowe type-II dysplasia. The acetabular loosening after 30 years was less likely when the hip center had been placed within the true acetabular region (TAR) (14), <15 mm superior to the approximate femoral head center (AFHC), <35 mm superior to the interteardrop line (ITL), or within zone 1 as described by Pagnano et al. (13). Similarly, cup revision due to aseptic loosening was less likely when the hip center had been placed <35 mm superior to the ITL, with a cumulative incidence of 25% versus 39% after 30 years.

The position of the acetabular component is an important parameter affecting long-term fixation of both the cup and the stem when cement is used. It is probably due to the increase in forces across the hip joint produced by major alterations in the positioning of the cup. The detrimental effects of a non-anatomical positioning of the cup, as demonstrated in this study, are particularly relevant to cemented femoral or acetabular components. Increased rates of loosening and aseptic revision of both the acetabular and the femoral component have been associated with an initial positioning of the acetabular cup outside of the TAR. Identification of the true center of rotation of the hip by extrapolation from that of the contralateral hip often is not possible because of distortion due to previous operative procedures or bilateral DDH. Methods of measurement and classification that have been used to determine the center of the hip joint under these circumstances have been based on the absolute distance from the radiographic teardrop (14). The TAR is defined as the area enclosed by an isosceles triangle, with the height and width equal to 20% of the height of the pelvis. The inferomedial corner of the TAR is 5 millimeters lateral to the intersection of the Kohler line with the radiographic teardrop. The mid-point of the triangle’s hypotenuse is defined as the AFHC and represents the normal center of rotation of the hip.

Some studies suggest that the lack of an association between the hip-center-height and loosening of the acetabular component resulted in lateral displacement is a detrimental factor. Contrastingly, superior non-anatomical placement without lateral displacement is acceptable. Horizontal displacement of the acetabular component was found to be an adverse factor and isolated superior displacement was considered unrelated to loosening of the acetabular component (7-9,15).

Anatomic placement of the acetabulum is biomechanically advantageous and increases the survival rate in these patients. Unbeknownst, reattachment of the gluteal muscles during this procedure provides faster and better functional recovery, and similarly, the bone stock is also protected, making revision surgery much easier. The anatomic location for acetabular component placement in severe dysplasia has been proposed by multiple authors as the optimal location for cup positioning after having demonstrated higher rates of acetabular loosening with nonanatomic placement.


Acknowledgements

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Liu R, Wen X, Tong Z, et al. Changes of gluteus medius muscle in the adult patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:101. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Wu X, Li SH, Lou LM, et al. The techniques of soft tissue release and true socket reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty for patients with severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Int Orthop 2012;36:1795-801. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Boyle MJ, Frampton CM, Crawford HA. Early results of total hip arthroplasty in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip compared with patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:386-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Sen C, Bilsel K, Elmadag M, et al. Acetabuloplasty at the anatomic centre for treating Crowe class III and IV developmental hip dysplasia: a case series. Hip Int 2016;26:360-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Fukui K, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, et al. How far above the true anatomic position can the acetabular cup be placed in total hip arthroplasty? Hip Int 2013;23:129-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Inoue M, Majima T, Abe S, et al. Using the transverse acetabular ligament as a landmark for acetabular anteversion: an intra-operative measurement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2013;21:189-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Oe K, Iida H, Kawamura H, et al. Long-term results of acetabular reconstruction using three bulk bone graft techniques in cemented total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia. Int Orthop 2016;40:1949-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Busch VJ, Verschueren J, Adang EM, et al. A cemented cup with acetabular impaction bone grafting is more cost-effective than an uncemented cup in patients under 50 years. Hip Int 2016;26:43-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Abdel MP, Stryker LS, Trousdale RT, et al. Uncemented acetabular components with femoral head autograft for acetabular reconstruction in developmental dysplasia of the hip: a concise follow-up report at a mean of twenty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1878-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Iwase T, Morita D, Ito T, et al. Favorable Results of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting for Large Segmental Bone Defects in Dysplastic Hips. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:2221-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Tikhilov R, Shubnyakov I, Burns S, et al. Experimental study of the installation acetabular component with uncoverage in arthroplasty patients with severe developmental hip dysplasia. Int Orthop 2016;40:1595-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Watts CD, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, et al. Anatomic Hip Center Decreases Aseptic Loosening Rates After Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cement in Patients with Crowe Type-II Dysplasia: A Concise Follow-up Report at a Mean of Thirty-six Years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:910-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, et al. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:1004-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE. Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:1059-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Swarup I, Marshall AC, Lee YY, et al. Implant survival and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Hip Int 2016;26:367-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Hu R, Li B, Tian X. Anatomic placement of the acetabulum improves the survival rate in patients with Crowe type-II dysplasia undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2016;4(24):552. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.12.60

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.