Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 339–343 | Cite as

A scoring system to determine radiological loosening in cemented total hip arthroplasty

  • D. M. Dall
  • I. D. Learmonth
  • M. Solomon
Article

Summary

A radiological scoring system was developed to identify grades of loosening of the components of a cemented hip replacement. In grade 1, there are mild changes, usually of minor significance; in grade 2 moderate changes which need regular observation, and in grade 3 severe changes which indicate impending failure. Three parameters are used for the socket, giving a score of 10 points, and 5 for the stem, with a score of 15 points. This method can be used to provide a comparison between different series with a long-term follow up.

Keywords

Public Health Minor Significance Moderate Change Severe Change Regular Observation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Pour quantifier le descellement d'une prothèse totale de hanche, les auteurs proposent une cotation radiologique en trois degrés. Degré 1: altérations mineures sans signification particulière. Degré 2: altérations modérées imposant une surveillance régulière. Degré 3: altérations majeures traduisant l'échec. Trois critères ont été utilisés pour le cotyle: 1) l'étendue circonférentielle du liseré os-ciment, 2) la largueur du liseré, 3) la migration de la cupule. Un score de dix points a été attribué à cette analyse du cotyle (3, 3 et 4 points respectivement pour chacun des trois paramètres). Pour la tige de la prothèse fémorale, cinq critères ont été utilisés: 1) le nombre de localisations du liseré, 2) la largeur de celui-ci, 3) l'enfoncement de la tige de la prothèse dans le ciment, 4) l'enfoncement du fourreau de ciment, 5) la résorption des corticales de la partie proximale du fémur. Un score de quinze points a été attribué à cette analyse de la tige prothétique (3 points pour chaque critère).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brand RA, Pedersen DR, Yoder SA (1986) How definition of “loosening” affects the incidence of loose total hip reconstructions. Clin Orthop 210: 185–191Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cotterill P, Hunter GA, Tile M (1982) A radiographic analysis of 166 Charnley-Muller total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 163: 120–126Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dall DM, Learmonth ID, Solomon MI, Davenport JM (1992) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip: a 3–17 year follow-up study. Acta Orthop Sand (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Lee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121: 20–32Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorey F, Amstutz HC (1986) Survivorship analysis in the evaluation of joint replacement. J Arthroplasty 1: 63–69Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJC, Ling RSM (1988) Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am 19: 477–489Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GN, Amstutz HC (1979) Modes of failure of cemented stem type femoral components. Clin Orthop 141: 17–27Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WH, McCarthy JC, O'Neill DA (1982) Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone J Surg [Am] 64: 1063–1067Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnston RC, Moines D, Fitzgerald RH, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surg [Am] 72: 161–168Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston RC, Crowninshield RD (1983) Roentgenologic results of total hip arthroplasty: a ten-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 181: 92–98Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kavanagh BF, Fitzgerald RH (1985) Clinical and roentgenographic assessment of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 193: 133–140Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McBeath AA, Foltz RN (1979) Femoral component loosening after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 141: 66–70Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paterson M, Fulford P, Denham R (1986) Loosening of the femoral component after total hip replacement — the thin black line and the sinking hip. J Bone Jt Surg [Br] 68: 392–397Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritter MA, Fechtman RW, Keating EM, Faris PM (1990) The use of a hip score for evaluation of the results of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5: 187–189Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Dall
    • 1
  • I. D. Learmonth
    • 2
  • M. Solomon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations