Advertisement

Systematic review of the outcome of cemented versus uncemented total hip arthroplasty following pelvic irradiation

  • S. Walters
  • A. Prasad
  • B. Guevel
  • K. M. Sarraf
  • P. Achan
  • S. Dawson-Bowling
  • S. Millington
  • S. A. HannaEmail author
Review
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with radiation-related changes to the bone, and specifically whether there is a difference in outcomes between cemented and uncemented acetabular components.

Methods

A database search was performed to identify available studies reporting adults undergoing THA who have previously had pelvic irradiation. Data were extracted and analysed with respect to the use of cemented versus uncemented acetabular components. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for independence.

Results

The all-cause revision rate was 24% in the cemented THA group (27/111), compared with 15% of uncemented THAs (22/143) (p = 0.073). Revision for acetabular aseptic loosening occurred in 16% of cases (18/111) in the cemented group and 10% (15/143) in the uncemented group (p = 0.178). Acetabular aseptic loosening was reported in 24% of cemented THAs (27/111) and 14% of uncemented THAs (20/143), which was statistically significant (p = 0.035). Not all of these went on to have revision THA. The Incidence of prosthetic joint infection was similar in both groups.

Conclusion

Overall outcomes appear to be better for uncemented THAs in post-radiotherapy patients, with a significantly lower rate of aseptic loosening and an appreciable (but not statistically significant) reduction in revision rate. The best outcomes seem to be associated with the use of acetabular reinforcement across both cemented and uncemented groups, but further work is needed to evaluate this.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Total hip replacement THA THR Radiation Irradiation Radiotherapy Cemented Uncemented 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Smithers D (1946) Radiotherapy and cancer. Postgrad Med J 22:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NHS, “Radiotherapy,” (2017). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/radiotherapy/. Accessed 27 May 2018
  3. 3.
    Dalinka MK, Edeiken J, Finkelstein JB (1974) Complications of radiation therapy: adult bone. Semin Roentgenol 9(1):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howland WJ, Loeffler RK, Starchman DE, Johnson RG (1975) Postirradiation atrophic changes of bone and related complications. Radiology 117(3 Pt 1):677–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell MJ, Logan PM (1998) Radiation-induced changes in bone. Radiographics 18(5):1125–1136 (quiz 1242-3) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duparc J, Bocquet C, Frot B, Gastambide D (1977) Radiation lesions of the hip. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 44(2):79–89Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grigsby PW, Roberts HL, Perez CA (1995) Femoral neck fracture following groin irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32(1):63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duparc J, Massin P (1996) Surgical treatment of radiation-induced lesions of the hip in adults. Bull Acad Natl Med 180(8):1815–1836 (discussion 1836-9) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwon JW, Huh SJ, Yoon YC, Choi SH, Jung JY, Oh D, Choe BK (2008) Pelvic bone complications after radiation therapy of uterine cervical cancer: evaluation with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(4):987–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massin P, Duparc J (1995) Total hip replacement in irradiated hips. A retrospective study of 71 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(6):847–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho MR, Kwun KW, Lee DH, Kim SY, Kim JD (2005) Latent period best predicts acetabular cup failure after total hip arthroplasties in radiated hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Felden A, Vaz G, Kreps S, Anract P, Hamadouche M, Biau DJ (2015) A cemented acetabular component with a reinforcement cross provides excellent medium-term fixation in total hip arthroplasty after pelvic irradiation. Bone Joint J 97-B(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobs JJ, Kull LR, Frey GA, Gitelis S, Sheinkop MB, Kramer TS, Rosenberg AG (1995) Early failure of acetabular components inserted without cement after previous pelvic irradiation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(12):1829–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim KI, Klein GR, Sleeper J, Dicker AP, Rothman RH, Parvizi J (2007) Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients with a history of pelvic irradiation for prostate cancer. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):798–805Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joglekar SB, Rose PS, Lewallen DG, Sim FH (2012) Tantalum acetabular cups provide secure fixation in THA after pelvic irradiation at minimum 5-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3041–3047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Paolis M, Zucchini R, Romagnoli C, Romantini M, Mariotti F, Donati D (2015) Short term results of tantalum acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty following pelvic irradiation. In: International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) & Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) 2015 annual meeting, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang HS, Kim T, Chung SK (2018) Resection arthroplasty in radiation-induced osteonecrosis of the hip. J Clin Orthopa Trauma.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.02.016 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demircay E, Unay K, Sener N (2009) Cementless bilateral total hip arthroplasty in a patient with a history of pelvic irradiation for sarcoma botryoides. Med Princ Pract 18(5):411–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Education EnglandLondonUK
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Imperial Healthcare NHS TrustLondonUK
  4. 4.Barts Health NHS TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations