Femoral head diameter and acetabular anteversion in hip prosthesis replacement

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2013.30.002

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Posterior dislocation after total hip replacement is one of the most common complications that second only to loosen, and can affect the stability of the hip joint seriously. There is controversy on the effect of femoral head diameter and acetabular anteversion on the stability of hip joint in clinical study.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the femoral head diameter and acetabular anteversion on the stability of hip joint after hip prosthesis replacement.
METHODS: The femoral head diameter and acetabular anteversion that affect the posterior instability after hip prosthesis replacement were measured on the cadaveric bone. The acetabular shell was inserted at 0°-20° of anteversion at five degree intervals. The femoral heads with different diameters (28, 32 and 36 mm) were used for experiment, the internal rotation degrees to dislocation caused by hip at 90° flexion and 0° adduction and at 90° flexion and 30° adduction were recorded.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: When the cup anteversion varied from 0° to 15°, there was an increase in the degree of internal rotation angle that could cause hip dislocation with the increasing of femoral head diameter (P < 0.05). When the cup anteversion varied from 15° to 20°, the increasing trend was not significant. With the hip at 90° flexion and 0° adduction, and the cup anteversion varied from 15° to 20°, the stability of 36 mm group was significantly higher than that of the 28 mm and 32 mm groups (P < 0.01); the stability of 32 mm group was higher than that of 28 mm group when the acetabular anteversion in 10° or more (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in stability between groups when the anteversion less than 10°. With the hip at 90° flexion and 30° adduction, the stability of 36 mm group was significantly higher than that of the 28 mm and 32 mm groups (P < 0.01); the stability of 32 mm group was higher than that of 28 mm group when the acetabular anteversion in 10° or more (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in stability between groups when the anteversion less than 10°. The results indicate that the increasing of acetabular anteversion can reduce the occurrence of dip dislocation, but when it is difficult to choice the acetabular anteversion, large-diameter femoral head is preferred to increase the stability of hip joint.

Key words: bone and joint implants, artificial prosthesis, computer assisted orthopedic surgery, navigation system, total hip arthroplasty, dislocation, diameter of femoral head, acetabular anteversion, head-to-neck ratio

CLC Number:

R318

Zhang Jiang-tao, Shang Yan-chun, Wu Fu-yuan, Qu Guang-yun. Femoral head diameter and acetabular anteversion in hip prosthesis replacement[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2013, 17(30): 5427-5433.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] Madey SM,Callaghan JJ,Olejnicza KJP, et al. Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improver techniques of cementing. The results after a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg(Am).1997;19:53-64

[2] 裘法祖,孟承伟.外科学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,1998:791.

[3] Borner M. Computer-assisted surgery. A critical evaluation. Unfallchirurg. 1997;100:689-691.

[4] Digioia AM 3rd, Jaramaz B, Colgan BD. Computer assisted orthopedic surgery. Image guided and robotic assistive technologies. Clin Orthop.1998;(354):8-16.

[5] Dennis DA, Channer M, Susman MH, et al. Intramedullary versus extramedullary tibial alignment systems in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:43-47.

[6] Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, et al. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-,32-,38-,and 44-mm femoral head sizes.J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:11-19.

[7] Woo R, Morrey B. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982; 64:1295-1306.

[8] Berry DJ ,von Knoch M, Schleck CD, et al. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2456-2463.

[9] Geller JA, Malchau H, Bragdon C, et al. Large diameter femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:53-59.

[10] Nadzadi ME,Pedersen DR,Yack HJ,et al. Kinematics,kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation.J Biomech. 2003;36:577-591.

[11] Jolles BM,Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors pressdisposing to dislocation after primary total hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:282-288.

[12] D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG,Buehler KO,et al. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg(Am). 2000;82:315-321.

[13] Widmer KH. Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion.J Orthop Res. 2004; 22(4):815-821.

[14] Beaule PE,Schmalzried TP,Udomkiat P,et al. Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement .J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:256-263.

[15] Bosker BH , Ettemma HB, Verheyen CCPM, et al. Acetabular augmentation ring for recurrent dislocation of total hip arthroplasty: 60% stability rate after an average follow-up of 74 months. Int Orthop. 2009;33:49-52.

[16] Etienne A, Cupic Z, Charnley J. Postoperative dislocation after Charnley low friction arthroplasty . Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;132:19-23.

[17] Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, et al. Dislocations after total hip replacement arthroplasty .J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60:217-220.

[18] Sakai T,Sugano N, Ohzono K, et al. Femoral anteversion, femoral offset ,and abductor lever arm after total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral neck system. J Orthop Sci.2002;7(1):62-67.

[19] Sakai T, Sugano N, Nishii T, et al. Optimizing femoral anteversion and offset after total hip arthroplasty,using a modular femoral ncek system: an experimental study. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5;489-494.

[20] Turner RS.Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocation:incidence, etiologic factors, and management. Clin Orthop. 1994;(301):196-204.

[21] Spangehl MJ, Younger AS, Masri BA, et al. Diagnosis of infection following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am).1997;79:1578-1588.

[22] Garvin KL,Hanssen AD. Infection after total hip arthroplasty: past, pre-sent, and future. J Bone Joint Surg(Am).1995; 77:1576-1588.

[23] Halley DK,Charnley J. Results of low friction arthroplasty in patients thirty years of age or younger. Clin Orthop. 1975; (112):180-191.

[24] Collis DK. Long-term (twelve to eighteen-year )follow-up of cemented total hip replacements in patients who were less than fifty years oid: a follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg (Am).1991;73:593-597.

[25] Gebhard JS, Amstutz HC, Zinar DM, et al. A comparision of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for treatment of actue fracture of the femoral neck. Clin Orthop. 1992;282: 123-131.

[26] Paterno SA, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS. The influence of patient-related factors and the position of the acetabular component on the rate of dislocation after total hip replacement .J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1202-1210.

[27] Yoshimine F,Ginbayashi X. A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement.J Biomech. 2002;35:989-993.

[28] Yoshimine F. The influence of the oscillation angle and the neck anteversion of the prosthesis on the cup safe-zone that fulfills the criteria for range of motion in total hip replacements. The required oscillation angle for an acceptable cup safe-zone. J Biomech. 2005;38:125-132.

[29] Soong M ,Rubash H, Macaulay W. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(5):314- 321.

[30] Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey B. Effect of femoral head size on wear of polyethylene of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:518-528.

[31] Bartz RL, Noble PC, Kadakia NR, et al. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1300- 1307.

[32] 冯宗权,张健平,谭健韶,等.全髋关节置换术下肢等长探讨[J].中国矫形外科杂志, 2003,11(6):373-376.

[33] 宋树春,陈成亮,潘玉林,等.全髋关节置换术后早期脱位的病因及防治[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2003,11(18):7-8.

[34] Mcevoy A, Jeyam M, Ferrier G, et al. Synergistic effect of particles and cyclic pressure on cytokine production in human monocyte/nacriogages:proposed role in periprosthetic osteolysis. Bone. 2002;30:171-177.

[35] Nadzadi ME,Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ, et al. Effects of acetabular component orientation on dislocation propensity for small-head-size total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol,Avon). 2002;17(1):32-40.

[36] Schulte KR, Callaghan JJ, Kelley SS, et al. The outcome of charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimumtwenty-year follow-up: the results of one surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg(Am).1993;75:961-975.

[37] Sariali E, Lazennec JY, Khiami F, et al. Mathematical evaluation of jumping distance in total hip arthroplasty influence of abduction angle, femoral head offset, and head diameter. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80:277-282.

[38] Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, et al. Biomechanics of large frmoral heads. Clin Orthop.2004; 429:102-107.

[39] Kavanagh BF, Wallrichs S, Dewitz M, et al. Charnley low friction arthroplasty of the hip:twenty-year results with cement. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:229-234.

[40] Soong M, Rubash HE, Macaulay W. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(5):314-321.