Advertisement

Herausforderungen der primären Hüftendoprothetik bei hoher Hüftluxation

  • A. RothEmail author
  • S. Goralski
  • F. Layher
  • J. Fakler
  • M. Ghanem
  • C. Pempe
  • R. Hennings
  • U. Spiegl
  • D. Zajonz
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die endoprothetische Versorgung der hohen Hüftluxation ist aufgrund der anatomischen Besonderheiten besonders anspruchsvoll. Das Azetabulum ist flach und schmal, der Knochen häufig osteopenisch, ein Defekt am Pfannendach kann vorliegen. Es besteht ein ventrales, teils auch dorsales Überdachungsdefizit. Häufig finden sich ein enger Markraum, eine Coxa valga und eine vermehrte Antetorsion. Der Trochanter major kann verbreitert sein. Das Offset ist vermindert. Die absolute Beinlänge kann vermehrt sein. Voroperationen bedingen weitere Abweichungen von der normalen Anatomie.

Behandlungsziel

Ziele der endoprothetischen Versorgung sind die Herstellung eines optimalen Rotationszentrums, eines optimalen Offsets und der korrekten Beinlänge.

Behandlung

Erreicht wird dies u. a. durch die Medialisierung der Pfanne, ggf. mit Einsatz einer kontrollierten medialen Fraktur mit autologer Knochenplastik für den Pfannengrund, ggf. unter Anwendung einer Pfannendachplastik. Ist die Rekonstruktion der Primärpfanne nicht möglich, kann eine gering nach kranial versetzte Implantation erfolgen. Eine Verkürzungsosteotomie, reorientierende Osteosynthese, Aufbohren des Femurs bei engem Markraum und die korrekte Implantatwahl sind weitere Optionen. Wegen der starken Weichteilverkürzungen ist ein sorgfältiges Weichteilmanagement erforderlich. Die Operation muss im Detail geplant werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Azetabulum Anatomische Variation Dysplasie Operative Behandlung Hüfttotalendoprothese 

Abkürzungen

CCD

Centrum-Collum-Diaphyse

K-Draht

Kirschner-Draht

RR

Revisionsrisiko

TEP

Totalendoprothese

Challenges of primary hip arthroplasty with high hip dislocation

Abstract

Background

Endoprosthetic care of high hip dislocation is a surgical challenge. The hip anatomy is greatly altered in these patients, including a rather flat and small acetabulum with impaired bone quality and a relevant chance of a bony defect of the acetabular roof. Additionally, the front coverage and in some cases even the dorsal coverage of the hip are missing. The proximal femur is characterized with an increased antetorsion, a coxa valga position and an enlarged greater trochanter. The medullary cavity is narrowed, the offset is reduced, and the absolut leg length can be enlarged. Further anatomic variations can have been caused by previous surgeries.

Aim of the treatment

The goal of the endoprosthetic care is the re-creation of a hip with an anatomic center of rotation, an anatomic offset and equal leg length.

Treatment

This can be achieved by a medial shift of the acetabular cup. An acetabular osteotomy including central cancellous bone graft or a bony graft to reinforce the acetabular roof might be necessary. In cases in which an anatomic acetabular cup placement is not possible, a more cranial placement can be done. Further strategies that are essential in several cases are shortening or re-orientation osteotomies of the femur, reaming of the medullary cavity and correct implant selection. Additionally, thorough soft tissue management is of main importance. Generally, the surgery should be well prepared preoperatively.

Keywords

Acetabula Anatomic variation Dysplasia Operative procedures Total hip replacement 

Notes

Danksagung

Die Autoren danken der Leipziger Künstlerin Frau Dr. Maren Sandrock für die Anfertigung der anatomischen Zeichnungen.

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

A. Roth, S. Goralski, F. Layher, J. Fakler, M. Ghanem, C. Pempe, R. Hennings, U. Spiegl und D. Zajonz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Lloyd-Roberts GC (1955) Osteoarthritis of the hip; a study of the clinical pathology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 37-B:8–47Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD (1983) Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 175:79–85Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris WH (1986) Etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 213:20–33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biant LC, Bruce WJ, Assini JB, Walker PM, Walsh WR (2009) Primary total hip arthroplasty in severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ten-year results using a cementless modular stem. J Arthroplasty 24:27–32Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faldini C, Nanni M, Leonetti D, Miscione MT, Acri F, Giannini S (2011) Total hip arthroplasty in developmental hip dysplasia using cementless tapered stem. Results after a minimum 10-year follow-up. Hip Int 21:415–420Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:15–23Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang Y, Zuo J, Liu T, Xiao J, Liu S, Gao Z (2017) Morphological analysis of true acetabulum in hip dysplasia (Crowe classes I–IV) via 3‑D implantation simulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:e92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartofilakidis G, Stamos K, Ioannidis TT (1988) Low friction arthroplasty for old untreated congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:182–186Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartofilakidis G, Stamos K, Karachalios T, Ioannidis TT, Zacharakis N (1996) Congenital hip disease in adults. Classification of acetabular deficiencies and operative treatment with acetabuloplasty combined with total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:683–692Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Günther KP, Stiehler M, Goronzy J, Schneiders W, Hartmann A (2015) Endoprothese bei Dysplasiecoxarthrose. Problemorientierte Versorgungsstrategien. Orthopade 44:497–498Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy SB, Kijewski PK, Millis MB, Harless A (1990) Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and young adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:214–223Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenstein AD, Diaz RJ (2011) Challenges and solutions for total hip arthroplasty in treatment of patients with symptomatic sequelae of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Am J Orthop 40:87–91Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Argenson JN, Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM (2007) Anatomy of the dysplastic hip and consequences for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:40–45Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karachalios T, Hartofilakidis G (2010) Congenital hip disease in adults: terminology, classification, pre-operative planning and management. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:914–921Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS (1998) The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:711–719Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N, Matsubara M, Harada Y, Ohzono K, Paravic V (2003) Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:27–40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Casper DS, Kim GK, Parvizi J, Freeman TA (2012) Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses. J Orthop Res 30:1162–1166Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garvin KL, Bowen MK, Salvati EA, Ranawat CS (1991) Long-term results of total hip arthroplasty in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. A follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:1348–1354Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Argenson JN, Ryembault E, Flecher X, Brassart N, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM (2005) Three-dimensional anatomy of the hip in osteoarthritis after developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1192–1196Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charnley J, Feagin JA (1973) Low-friction arthroplasty in congenital subluxation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 91:98–113Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris WH, Crothers O, Oh I (1977) Total hip replacement and femoral-head bone-grafting for severe acetabular deficiency in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:752–759Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhu B, Su C, He Y, Chai X, Li Z, Hou Z, Lou T, Yan X (2017) Combined anteversion technique in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip. Hip Int 27:589–594Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Radin EL, Paul IL (1974) The biomechanics of congenital dislocated hips and their treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 98:32–38Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerboul M (1989) TotalprothesenImplantation an der deformierten Hüfte am Beispiel der kongenitalen Hüftluxation. Orthopade 18:397–417Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schüller HM, Dalstra M, Huiskes R, Marti RK (1993) Total hip reconstruction in acetabular dysplasia. A finite element study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:468–474Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lai KA, Lin CJ, Jou IM, Su FC (2001) Gait analysis after total hip arthroplasty with leg-length equalization in women with unilateral congenital complete dislocation of the hip—comparison with untreated patients. J Orthop Res 19:1147–1152Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B (2005) Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:762–769Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakellariou VI, Christodoulou M, Sasalos G, Babis GC (2014) Reconstruction of the acetabulum in developmental dysplasia of the hip in total hip replacement. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2:130–136Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE (1980) Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:1059–1065Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Babisch J, Layher F, Venbrocks RA, Rose I (2002) Biomechanisch fundierte Hüftoperationsplanung mit Hilfe des Softwaremoduls EndoMap. Electromedica 70:39–46Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blumentritt S, Ehrenpfordt A (1988) Biomechanische Bauprinzipien des menschlichen Hüftgelenkes und deren Anwendung in Diagnostik und Therapie. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena (Habilschrift)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blumentritt S (1990) Die Beziehung zwischen dem Gang des Menschen und dem Hüftgelenksaufbau in der Frontalebene. Gegenbaurs Morphol Jahrb 136:677–693Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ (1996) The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1004–1014Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murayama T, Ohnishi H, Okabe S, Tsurukami H, Mori T, Nakura N, Uchida S, Sakai A, Nakamura T (2012) 15-year comparison of cementless total hip arthroplasty with anatomical or high cup placement for Crowe I to III hip dysplasia. Orthopedics 35:e313–e318Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nawabi DH, Meftah M, Nam D, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS (2014) Durable fixation achieved with medialized, high hip center cementless THAs for Crowe II and III dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:630–636Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Ichiseki T, Yamada K, Fukui K, Matsumoto T (2009) Minimum ten-year results of a porous acetabular component for Crowe I to III hip dysplasia using an elevated hip center. J Arthroplasty 24:187–194Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang Z, Wu P, Huang Z, Yu B, Sun H, Fu M, Kang Y, Liao W (2017) Cementless acetabular component with or without upward placement in dysplasia hip: early results from a prospective, randomised study. J Orthop 14:370–376Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perka C, Fischer U, Taylor WR, Matziolis G (2004) Developmental hip dysplasia treated with total hip arthroplasty with a straight stem and a threaded cup. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86–A:312–319Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hintermann B, Morscher EW (1995) Total hip replacement with solid autologous femoral head graft for hip dysplasia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 114:137–144Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wasielewski RC, Galat DD, Sheridan KC, Rubash HE (2005) Acetabular anatomy and transacetabular screw fixation at the high hip center. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:171–176Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu Q, Zhou YX, Xu HJ, Tang J, Guo SJ, Tang QH (2009) Safe zone for transacetabular screw fixation in prosthetic acetabular reconstruction of high developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2880–2885Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hendrich C, Engelmaier F, Mehling I, Sauer U, Kirschner S, Martell JM (2007) Cementless acetabular reconstruction and structural bone-grafting in dysplastic hips. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 2 Pt.1):54–67Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hendrich C, Mehling I, Sauer U, Kirschner S, Martell JM (2006) Cementless acetabular reconstruction and structural bone-grafting in dysplastic hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:387–394Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kamada T, Mashima N, Nakashima Y, Imai H, Takeba J, Miura H (2015) Mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous tantalum modular acetabular components for hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 30:607–610Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Siebenrock KA, Tannast M, Kim S, Morgenstern W, Ganz R (2005) Acetabular reconstruction using a roof reinforcement ring with hook for total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip-osteoarthritis minimum 10-year follow-up results. J Arthroplasty 20:492–498Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fickert S, Pfeiffer S, Walter A, Günther KP, Witzleb WC (2010) Azetabuläre Revisionsoperationen mit der längsovalen Revisionspfanne: Klinische und radiologische Ergebnisse von 217 Fällen. Orthopade 39:503–511Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhen P, Liu J, Lu H, Chen H, Li X, Zhou S (2017) Developmental hip dysplasia treated by total hip arthroplasty using a cementless Wagner cone stem in young adult patients with a small physique. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:192Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yoshimine F (2006) The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements. J Biomech 39:1315–1323Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD (2007) Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1832–1842Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Symeonides PP, Pournaras J, Petsatodes G, Christoforides J, Hatzokos I, Pantazis E (1997) Total hip arthroplasty in neglected congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 341:55–61Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gorski JM (1988) Modular noncemented total hip arthroplasty for congenital dislocation of the hip. Case report and design rationale. Clin Orthop Relat Res 228:110–116Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Marega L (2005) The management of version abnormalities and angular deformities in developmental dysplasia of the hip. Orthopedics 28(9 Suppl):S1097–S1099Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rasi AM, Kazemian G, Khak M, Zarei R (2018) Shortening subtrochanteric osteotomy and cup placement at true acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty of Crowe III–IV developmental dysplasia: results of midterm follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28:923–930Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Howie CR, Ohly NE, Miller B (2010) Cemented total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric osteotomy in dysplastic hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3240–3247Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Atilla B (2017) Reconstruction of neglected developmental dysplasia by total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy. Efort Open Rev 1:65–71Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rollo G, Solarino G, Vicenti G, Picca G, Carrozzo M, Moretti B (2017) Subtrochanteric femoral shortening osteotomy combined with cementless total hip replacement for Crowe type IV developmental dysplasia: a retrospective study. J Orthop Traumatol 18:407–413Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Greber EM, Pelt CE, Gililland JM, Anderson MB, Erickson JA, Peters CL (2017) Challenges in total hip arthroplasty in the setting of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty 32:S38–S44Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kocabiyik A, Misir A, Kizkapan TB, Yildiz KI, Kaygusuz MA, Alpay Y, Ezici A (2017) Changes in hip, knee, and ankle coronal alignments after total hip arthroplasty with transverse femoral shortening osteotomy for unilateral crowe type IV developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty 32:3449–3456Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kim YH, Kim JS (2005) Total hip arthroplasty in adult patients who had developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty 20:1029–1036Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rozkydal Z, Janícek P, Smíd Z (2005) Total hip replacement with the CLS expansion shell and a structural femoral head autograft for patients with congenital hip disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:801–807Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Eskelinen A, Helenius I, Remes V, Ylinen P, Tallroth K, Paavilainen T (2006) Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients with high congenital hip dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:80–91Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chougle A, Hemmady MV, Hodgkinson JP (2006) Long-term survival of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty with cement in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:71–79Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Duncan S, Wingerter S, Keith A, Fowler SA, Clohisy J (2015) Does previous osteotomy compromise total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 30:79–85Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Johnsen SP, Søballe K (2008) Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Implant survival after primary total hip arthroplasty due to childhood hip disorders: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 79:769–776Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cameron HU, Botsford DJ, Park YS (1996) Influence of the Crowe rating on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty in congenital hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 11:582–587Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Engesaeter IO, Lehmann T, Laborie LB, Lie SA, Rosendahl K, Engesaeter LB (2011) Total hip replacement in young adults with hip dysplasia: age at diagnosis, previous treatment, quality of life, and validation of diagnoses reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2007. Acta Orthop 82:149–154Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Boyle MJ, Singleton N, Frampton CM, Muir D (2013) Functional response to total hip arthroplasty in patients with hip dysplasia. ANZ J Surg 83:554–558Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Roth
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Goralski
    • 1
  • F. Layher
    • 2
  • J. Fakler
    • 1
  • M. Ghanem
    • 1
  • C. Pempe
    • 1
  • R. Hennings
    • 1
  • U. Spiegl
    • 1
  • D. Zajonz
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie Bereich Endoprothetik/OrthopädieUniversitätsklinik Leipzig AöRLeipzigDeutschland
  2. 2.Deutsches Zentrum für Orthopädie, Professur für Orthopädie des Universitätsklinikums JenaWaldkliniken EisenbergJenaDeutschland

Personalised recommendations