Bone loss in patients undergoing revision THA poses a considerable challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Often, to achieve better fixation in remaining bone, larger diameter acetabular components and reaming superiorly may be necessary. However, this is likely to raise the hip center of rotation, which may lead to altered biomechanics, specifically, insufficiency of the abductor muscles, altered gait, and increased risk of dislocation from impingement. More recently, a newer acetabular shell has been designed to more closely replicate the native hip center of rotation in these circumstances while maintaining adequate fixation.Questions/purposes
The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic parameters of this newer design with conventional hemispheric cups in revision THA. Specifically, we assessed the differences in (1) vertical center of rotation (COR) displacement and (2) horizontal COR displacement.Methods
Between January 2016 and April 2016, five reconstructive surgeons at five institutions utilized a newer highly porous acetabular shell designed with peripheral screw holes and vertically eccentric COR to allow for restoration of center of hip rotation in revision THA. We included all patients who received this device. During this time, the general indications at these sites for using the new device included Paprosky Stage IIA, IIB, IIC, or IIIA acetabular defects. This yielded 29 patients who were subsequently matched (one to two) by cup size and sex to a cohort who underwent revision THA with conventional hemispheric cups between January 2015 and May 2016. To determine hip COR, radiographic measurements were performed. A circle contiguous to the acetabulum was drawn and the center was determined as the hip COR. All measurements were made from the interteardrop line for both the revised and native hips. A line through the teardrops was used for all horizontal measurements. Center position adjustments were made based on the manufacturer-specified values. Comparisons were performed using chi-square tests for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables. There was no difference in the severity of bone loss before the revision in the groups, as evidenced by Paprosky staging of preoperative radiographs.Results
The mean vertical COR displacement was smaller in patients who had the novel cup (3.5 mm; range, -12 to 15 mm; mean difference, -7.3 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -1.5) as compared with those who had the conventional cup (10.5 mm; range, -4 to 50 mm; mean difference, 7.3 mm; 95% CI, -12.5 to -2.2; p = 0.003). There was no difference in mean horizontal displacement between the two groups (-0.06 ± 6.1 versus 1.7 ± 7.1; mean difference, -1.8; p = 0.903).Conclusions
Although hip COR was improved based on radiographic measurements with the use of this novel acetabular design, and although this may improve hip biomechanics, more studies are required before its widespread adoption for revision cases of this nature can be recommended. Both implant costs and the risks associated with using a new design in practice will have to be justified by studies that evaluate fixation, clinical function and implant survival, and patient-reported outcome scores, all of which were beyond the scope of this preliminary report.Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study.