Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 10, pp 3251–3259

Restoration of the Hip Center During THA Performed for Protrusio Acetabuli Is Associated With Better Implant Survival

  • Yaser M. K. Baghdadi
  • A. Noelle Larson
  • Rafael J. Sierra
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Acetabular protrusio is an uncommon finding in hip arthritis. Several reconstructive approaches have been used; however the best approach remains undefined.

Questions/purposes

Our purposes in this study were to (1) describe the THA survivorship for protrusio as a function of the acetabular component, (2) evaluate survivorship of the cup as a function of restoration of radiographic hip mechanics and offset, and (3) report the long-term clinical results.

Methods

One hundred twenty-seven patients (162 hips) undergoing primary THA with acetabular protrusio were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age of the patients at surgery was 66 ± 13 years, and the mean followup was 10 ± 6 years (range, 2–25 years).The cup fixation was uncemented in 107 (83 with bone graft) and cemented in 55 hips (14 with bone graft). Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were reviewed for restoration of hip mechanics and offset.

Results

The THA survival from aseptic cup revision at 15 years was 89% (95% CI, 75%–96%) for uncemented compared with 85% (95% CI, 68%–94%) for cemented cups. The risk of aseptic cup revision significantly increased by 24% (hazards ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.5) for every 1 mm medial or lateral distance away from the native hip center of rotation to the prosthetic head center. Harris hip scores were improved by mean of 27 ± 20 points (n = 123) with a higher postoperative score for uncemented bone grafted compared with solely cemented cups (81 ± 16 versus 71 ± 20 points).

Conclusions

Restoring hip center of rotation using an uncemented cup with or without bone graft was associated with increased durability in our series. There was a 24% increase in the risk of aseptic cup revision for every 1 mm medial or lateral distance away from the native hip center to the prosthetic head center.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Armbuster TG, Guerra J Jr, Resnick D, Goergen TG, Feingold ML, Niwayama G, Danzig LA. The adult hip: an anatomic study. Part I: the bony landmarks. Radiology. 1978;128:1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DJ, Kessler M, Morrey BF. Maintaining a hip joint registry for 25 years: Mayo Clinic experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:61–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles MN, Bourne RB, Davey JR, Greenwald AS, Morrey BF, Rorabeck CH. Soft-tissue balancing of the hip: the role of femoral offset restoration. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:131–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dearborn JT, Harris WH. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty: results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:469–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunlop CC, Jones CW, Maffulli N. Protrusio acetabuli. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005;62:105–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gates HS 3rd, McCollum DE, Poletti SC, Nunley JA. Bone-grafting in total hip arthroplasty for protrusio acetabuli: a follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:248–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerra J Jr, Armbuster TG, Resnick D, Goergen TG, Feingold ML, Niwayama G, Danzig LA. The adult hip: an anatomic study. Part II: the soft-tissue landmarks. Radiology. 1978;128:11–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodgkinson JP, Shelley P, Wroblewski BM. The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988:228:105–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsuno H, Yasuda T, Yudoh K, Yonezawa T, Nakazawa F, Murata T, Kimura T. Cementless cup supporter for protrusio acetabuli in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Int Orthop. 2000;24:15–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCollum DE, Nunley JA, Harrelson JM. Bone-grafting in total hip replacement for acetabular protrusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1065–1073.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mullaji AB, Marawar SV. Primary total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli using impacted morsellized bone grafting and cementless cups: a medium-term radiographic review. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:1143–1149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1004–1014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pomeranz MM. Intrapelvic protrusion of the acetabulum (Otto pelvis). 1932. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:6–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE. Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1059–1065.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenberg WW, Schreurs BW, de Waal Malefijt MC, Veth RP, Slooff TJ. Impacted morsellized bone grafting and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty for acetabular protrusion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an 8- to 18-year follow-up study of 36 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:143–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schutzer SF, Harris WH. High placement of porous-coated acetabular components in complex total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:359–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sotelo-Garza A, Charnley J. The results of Charnley arthroplasty of hip performed for protrusio acetabuli. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;132:12–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York, NY: Springer; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Udomkiat P, Wan Z, Dorr LD. Comparison of preoperative radiographs and intraoperative findings of fixation of hemispheric porous-coated sockets. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1865–1870.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson MG, Scott RD. Bipolar socket in protrusio acetabuli: 3–6-year study. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:405–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S. Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:862–867.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoder SA, Brand RA, Pedersen DR, O’Gorman TW. Total hip acetabular component position affects component loosening rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;228:79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaser M. K. Baghdadi
    • 1
  • A. Noelle Larson
    • 1
  • Rafael J. Sierra
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations